Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A WTO-like outcome: Monsanto forces a dairy to change its labeling

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 04:17 PM
Original message
A WTO-like outcome: Monsanto forces a dairy to change its labeling
Edited on Mon Dec-29-03 04:18 PM by Mairead
Oakhurst Dairy will change its milk carton labels to settle a lawsuit filed against the Maine milk dealer by chemical giant Monsanto, which manufactures artificial growth hormones for cows.

Oakhurst's familiar red flag stating "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones Used" will remain. But the bottom of the label will add a disclaimer: "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormones."

http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/031225monsanto.shtml

Note that the dairy's labels made no mention of Monsanto or its products. Why wasn't the case immediately thrown out of court?

This is the future unless we elect Dennis Kucinich.

Phone 866 413 3664 and commit some money to his campaign. Send a message that we're prepared to reward someone who's tough, fearless, and on our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. As a Mainer, this really ticks me off
That company has NO business coming into our state and telling us how to do things.

At least we can keep the badge on the milk. And as for the FDA disclaimer, yeah that's worth so much. This is the same office that tells us that our cows are safe to eat, but that Canadian prescription drugs are dangerous.

*seeing red now*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sounds just like a Chapter from
Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks for sharing this, Mairead
Another wonderful example of why Kucinich is who we need right now. Not someday in the future, after somehow all the hard work of de-programming Americans has already started, but NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. The dislaimer should be on the product that *uses* the hormones, not the
one that doesn't.

There is *way* too much money in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. I wonder if there was a text size requirement in the settlement...
If not, then there's nothing saying that the "disclaimer" couldn't be written so small you'd need a magnifying glass to read it. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Yeah...
Like those "Changes to Your Credit Card Agreement" that appear on the back of your statements written in the smallest characters possible and in (very) light brown (or gray) ink. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. If you dig a little
deeper into Monsanto's activities, it will anger you more. We're talking corporate control of the world's food supply. And all kinds of profane manipulations of living things and biosystems to increase their output and profit.

Growth hormone is only one of Monsanto's dirty fingers in the food supply. Read all about it here:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbghlink.html

Then go to the homepage and browse to see what Monsanto (and others) are doing with GMO crops, etc.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/log.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Get your "Codex Alimentarius" on !
Edited on Mon Dec-29-03 05:08 PM by SpiralHawk
The Octopus is taking over every last drop and crumb of the food chain.

Grow your own. Get your seeds on now ! (and make sure they are open-pollinated seeds from natural stock).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-i-acs Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. A win for the small Maine dairy -
They got to keep their original pledge intact. Then only added a small bit about the FDA finding no problem with BGH milk, which Oakhurst does not even sell...

Anyone who dislikes BHG milk can find Oakhurst milk with their BGH free pledge on the label.

And anyone who has been a loyal Oakhurst customer for years knows that their small Maine factory kneecapped a giant this week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. um, aren't you being a little pollyanna-ish?
Why should they have had to do anything at all? It looks like a loss to me. Or at best a pyrrhic victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. After 8 years of 'liberal' leadership courtesy of Clinton...
I'm not surprised this can be perceived as a 'victory'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-i-acs Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Monsanto originally wanted the whole thing scrapped-
So keeping the original words, and only adding some legal-ese weasel words, can be perceived as a victory.

The dairy can still call their milk BGH free.

Consumers who want milk without BGH can find it labeled as such.

Compared to fighting in court until Oakhurst runs out of money, it is about the best that they could have been hoped for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-04 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I think you're missing the point
How did Monsanto even get standing? Why couldn't, say, goat-milk producers demand that the cartons carry a 'goat milk is just as good' statement? It makes as much sense! Neither Monsanto nor Monsanto's products were mentioned on the carton...so what was the theory that gave them a cause of action at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-i-acs Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-04 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I don't get the analogy.
Goat-milk producers could put a label on goat's milk if they want to.

Monsanto's take on it was that the Oakhurst label implied to the customer that the BGH-free milk is safer, when no studies have proven it so yet.

But Monsanto's concern coupled with their deep pockets could have mired the little Maine dairy in a no-win legal battle. So I am pleased with the outcome in that regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-04 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. My point is that Monsanto didn't have a case, and their suit should have
Edited on Fri Jan-02-04 04:23 PM by Mairead
been dismissed out of hand.

As to the goat milk, try this: "The goat-milk producers' take on it was that the Oakhurst label (by not mentioning goat milk) implied to the customer that cow milk is safer/tastier/something else desirable, when no studies have proven it so yet."

If you still don't get it, then I don't know what else to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-04 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. Kucinich is Right On but another alternative that will get us there is..
to build a major movement to limit corporate power, do trust-busting, etc.

Truth is, Kucinich wouldn't be able to do it on his own, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC