Terry Etherton
I attended a dairy producer meeting in Breese, Illinois on December 18, 2006. It was an excellent meeting that was organized by two producers, Boyd Schaufelberger and Frank Doll. Over 100 producers attended the meeting. The meeting was prompted by the recent public discussion surrounding recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and truth-in-labeling. I have written previous articles on this topic, and the reader is directed to these for an in-depth analysis.
Ed Mullins, the CEO and Executive Vice President of Prairie Farms dairy cooperative in Carlinville, Ill. told the group “We’re not trying to stop the technology you are using. But we have a huge consumer base that’s asking for rbST-free milk.” (Later, he acknowledged that about 10 percent of the Prairie Farms’ consumer base is either demanding rbST-free milk or would like to know when rbST-free milk will be available to them.)
Mr. Mullins’s comments are very interesting and illustrate how some in the dairy industry are framing consumer demand to position the idea that there is a growing market for this product. The facts are that there is no up-tick in consumer demand (see a recent IFIC Consumer Survey on Biotechnology). One important aspect of this “increased demand” claim is that it is a strategy where some retailers/processors are trying to create another category of milk at a different, and higher, price point than conventional milk, and using “consumer demand” as the ploy!
The resulting array of milk products available in your dairy case is conventional, rbST-free and organic milk. Compared to conventional milk, the latter two product lines sell for a premium that varies nationally from about $.40 to $2.20 per gallon (for rbST-free milk) and $3.00 to $5.00 per gallon (for organic milk).
The other aspect of this retail ” increased demand” relates to some processors/retailers who cave to pressure from a small, vocal cohort of anti-ag/anti-biotech activists who criticize hormones in milk. A consequent effect is these processors/retailers promote rbST-free milk, and put the squeeze on producers to stop using the production-enhancing rbST so that they can label their product as “non-rbST” and sell it for a lot more. So, we are back to the old story of all milk being the same from a composition and safety perspective; however, milk labeled as rbST-free or organic is being sold at a much higher price!
But the fear marketing continues. I just saw an organic AND rbST-free labeled milk product in the dairy case that touted “no antibiotics, artificial hormones or pesticides”. To some consumers this conveys that other milk just might contain these components. This infers that the product is not safe. This is nonsense!
The IFIC survey mentioned above clearly demonstrates that few consumers are concerned about biotechnology – their primary concerns relate to disease/food contamination and food handling/preparations methods used (see Figure 1).The producer meeting in Illinois concluded with the recognition that the dairy producers in America need to become proactive to represent their interests in the marketplace, hold management of cooperatives accountable for their actions, and become an active participant in consumer education campaigns about biotechnology in agriculture and the food system we have built, which is one of the greatest accomplishments in our society – and in the world.
