Hearts and Minds

The stealth campaign against biotech

There’s a quiet battle being waged for the hearts and minds of consumers, and it’s taking place in your supermarket.

One flashpoint of that battle is the dairy case, where a lowly label is being used as a “stealth” weapon. You’ve seen it if you’ve picked up a carton of organic milk: “This milk contains no added hormones, antibiotics or pesticides.”

“Producers need to be aware that there’s a ‘good milk vs. bad milk’ marketing campaign taking place,” says Terry Etherton, head of the department of dairy and animal science and distinguished professor of animal nutrition at Penn State University.

“It’s a campaign that attempts to differentiate food based on technology and management practices used in production even when no difference exists,” he says. “It’s a campaign that’s misleading and creates confusion for consumers.”

For example, he says, “Starbucks is the biggest consumer of fluid milk in the United States. Food and Water Watch pounded on them through consumers, and now Star- bucks only sources rBST-free milk.”

Citing the “no antibiotics, no hormones” label (an absence claim) Etherton says it implies that all other milk does contain hormones, antibiotics and pesticides. “There’s no test on the planet that can differentiate between organic and milk that’s produced with or without using rBST,” he says.

“But consumers will make the mental leap. It’s a tactic to scare them and allows companies to charge significantly more.”

Etherton fears that through absence claims and pressure tactics dairy producers will lose the option to use biotech tools ranging from rBST to Rumensin to artificial insemination, as well as biotech crops they raise to feed their animals or to sell.

Why worry? This is a global concern, Etherton says. As the world’s population grows, the amount of land that is available for production diminishes.

“The challenge will be to increase food production to feed more people on the same or less cropland,” he says. “If we stop all research and development of biotech tools, we won’t be able to turn on a switch and fix the food-production problem overnight.

“Right now, more than 850 million people worldwide suffer from malnutrition and poverty. We know that these conditions lead to instability, so losing biotech tools becomes not just an economic matter for producers, but one of national security.”

Etherton calls on dairy producers to get more involved, especially since powerful organizations like Food and Water Watch, the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are working hard to make animal agriculture increasingly difficult.

He advises producers to encourage the Food and Drug Adminis- tration to move more rapidly on considering the removal of absence claims, and to press dairy organizations to take a stand on the use of biotechnology. He also stresses the ongoing need to reach out in new ways to educate consumers about animal agriculture.

“PETA has 1,800 video clips on YouTube. How many do dairy producers have?” he says. EP

For more information

For more views on the stealth battle against biotech, visit two blogs:

• Terry Etherton’s on hormones, biotechnology and food safety at www.terryetherton.org.
• The Center for Global Food Issues’ “Milk is Milk” at www.milkismilk.com.