Cyndi Young
Brownfield Ag News
Published in Illinois AgriNews (April 17, 2008)
A release I came across in my computer inbox the other day promoted the establishment of a new brand of milk. Not only does this milk come from happy cows, but from socially responsible dairy farms.
It appears that “socially responsible” has replaced “politically correct” as the buzz phrase of choice in many circles.
I am all for producers finding niche markets. Many farmers growing corn and soybeans in the Illinois River bottoms are cashing in on premiums for non-GMO crops grown for export. Proximity to river terminal markets allows easier access to the transportation vehicle that will take the product to those who are willing to pay a premium for it.
These farmers are producing a product for a narrowly defined group of potential customers. They are not avoiding biotechnology because they have to, but because they have found a market that is not supplied by mainstream providers.
Just the word biotechnology associated with food scares the pants off of some people. Terry Etherton, who heads up the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University, told me it’s not really about the science, but about an individual’s perception of the value of a product.
“Biotechnology is simply the use of biology to produce some product, good or service to benefit society,” Terry explained. “Bread and wine making are uses of biotechnology.”
People rave about the science used for biomedical purposes. Terry Etherton is right. It’s not really about the science. It’s about perception of value. That perception could be swayed by a seed of misinformation planted by an anti-agriculture group. Another scenario Terry described: “A lot of us have had a jolting experience in a science course somewhere along the line so it’s not their favorite topic.”
And finally, Terry told me, “The scientific community – researchers specifically – are more concerned about publishing their papers in the Scientific Journal than they are in explaining what they are doing, how it is important to society and how it might benefit society.”
He says this speaks to the issue of better developing and delivering science education programs to the public, which has not been done in an effective manner. When people have imbedded value systems and beliefs, it is very challenging to modify their behavior.
“A large scale population education program for anything is really, really expensive,” he explained.
I understand value systems. I understand beliefs. What I don’t get is how, with a clear conscience, some in the dairy processing industry can so quickly use misperceptions about biotechnology against the dairy farmers who have partnered with them for years.
As Terry Etherton explained to me, some in the dairy processing industry are using words like “artificial hormones” to scare consumers into believing that milk produced without the use of supplemental bovine somatotropin (rBST) is better than milk produced with it.
“The TRUTH is, all milk is the same within a fat class. All milk contains lots of hormones. There is no difference between organic and conventional milk.”
Terry calls it a deceptive marketing campaign that has resulted in a lot of money being made at retail that is not being shared with the producers.
“The processors want rBST-free milk. Most recent price data from the American Farm Bureau Federation found that the retail mark -up differential is $22.50 per hundredweight when you compare conventional versus rBST free milk,” he said. “There are producers being forced into situations where they cannot use supplemental BST because co-ops have been pushed by processors upstream.”
Terry said well-conducted surveys show that consumers want to buy cheap milk. This is not about what the consumers want. I know producers who are being forced to sign affidavits saying they will not use the technology or their milk will not be picked up. In many situations, producers only have one option to sell their milk.
As a man of science, Terry Etherton is perplexed by this campaign against rBST.
“Bovine somatotropin has no biological effect in humans. It is not recognized by human cells.” Beyond that, says Etherton, “You’re talking about a molecule that is present in all milk whether it is conventional or organic or BST free at the same level and treatment doesn’t change it. Since it is a protein, it is digested like all other proteins. It doesn’t matter if it is green bean protein or milk protein. Most of the milk sold in this country is pasteurized, and the heat in that process renders BST inactive anyway!”
I have heard so many rumors about rBST that it makes my head swim. There is no merit to the myth that it causes cancer and it is not banned in any of these United States. It does not cause cows to “burn out.”
If farmers want to produce a product for a niche market, more power to ’em. Give them a piece of the premium. The current system of forcing producers to give up a risk management tool that has been safe and effective since its introduction in the U.S. 14 years ago just doesn’t seem fair to me.
Posted with permission.