REVIEW & OUTLOOK (Published on January 20, 2007; Page A10)
Starbucks advertises itself as a coffee company with a social conscience. These are the folks who created the marketing gimmick of “fair trade” coffee for America’s latte drinkers. So it’s no shock that Starbucks announced this week that it will buckle under to pressure from left-wing activist groups and phase-out its purchases of milk containing artificial growth hormone.
In so doing the company will help legitimize one of the greatest consumer frauds of recent times: that milk from cows injected with the growth hormone rBGH causes cancer. The hormone’s critics also allege that drinking this milk causes early puberty in girls. About 20% of dairy products today comes from cows injected with hormones, which causes them to produce more milk, which in turn reduces prices to consumers. But for 20 years, green and Naderite groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have waged a campaign against rBGH. That campaign has duped millions of health-conscious Americans into paying 40 cents to $2 a gallon more for “hormone-free” milk.
It’s a free country, and if Americans are willing to pay a $2-a-gallon premium for a meaningless label on the milk carton, so be it. But as far back as 1993 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rGBH-milk as “safe for human consumption.” Some 14 billion gallons have since been consumed, and there have been no documented instances of disease or sickness. Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution, a former director of the FDA’s office of biotechnology, states emphatically: “There is no scientific evidence of a cancer link from the hormone rBGH — period.”// <![CDATA[
D(["mb"," n nIronically, many of the same &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;green&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; groups, which insist that wenfollow the &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;scientific consensus&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; on global warming, are contemptuousnof the genuine scientific agreement on the benefits of bio-engineering. Onenmight think that the left would celebrate technologies that make food morenplentiful and cheaper for consumers. With recent claims that millions ofnAmericans go to bed hungry each night, why aren&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;t these groups cheeringninnovations that cut food costs for the world? n nInstead, the Organic Consumers Association, one of the leading opponents ofnrBGH, compares dairy farms to &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;concentration camps&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; on its Website.nPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claims that hormones are unfair tonthe cows because they have to carry around more milk. n nThe affluent in America can afford to pay higher grocery bills and buy $3ncoffee every morning as they wage war against biotechnology. But they do so atnthe expense of the world&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s poor, who benefit most from cheap, more abundantnfood. &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;There are often fatal consequences to these groups&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39; Ludditenphilosophy,&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; notes Fred Smith, president of the Competitive EnterprisenInstitute. n nAs for Starbucks, its spokesman Brandon Borrman told us &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;we are onlynresponding to the desires of our customers.&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; It&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s hard to see hownStarbucks can absorb the higher costs of hormone-free milk without off-loadingnthem onto their customers&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39; lattes. And maybe there&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s a kind of justice in that.nAs to &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;social responsibility,&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; it&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s hard to see where thenresponsibility lies in promoting a scientifically discredited fear. n URL for this article: nhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB116925841311282331.html n n
nn“,1] );
// ]]>
Ironically, many of the same “green” groups, which insist that we follow the “scientific consensus” on global warming, are contemptuous of the genuine scientific agreement on the benefits of bio-engineering. One might think that the left would celebrate technologies that make food more plentiful and cheaper for consumers. With recent claims that millions of Americans go to bed hungry each night, why aren’t these groups cheering innovations that cut food costs for the world?
Instead, the Organic Consumers Association, one of the leading opponents of rBGH, compares dairy farms to “concentration camps” on its Website. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claims that hormones are unfair to the cows because they have to carry around more milk.
The affluent in America can afford to pay higher grocery bills and buy $3 coffee every morning as they wage war against biotechnology. But they do so at the expense of the world’s poor, who benefit most from cheap, more abundant food. “There are often fatal consequences to these groups’ Luddite philosophy,” notes Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
As for Starbucks, its spokesman Brandon Borrman told us “we are only responding to the desires of our customers.” It’s hard to see how Starbucks can absorb the higher costs of hormone-free milk without off-loading them onto their customers’ lattes. And maybe there’s a kind of justice in that. As to “social responsibility,” it’s hard to see where the responsibility lies in promoting a scientifically discredited fear.
The URL for this article can be found at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116925841311282331.html