WSJ Attacks OCA for Driving rBGH off the Market & Boycotting Horizon Factory Farm Milk[/b]

[nosmokes]

so the WSJ tries to equate the general scientific consensus of global warming with the *genuine scientific agreement on rBGH? genuine scientific agreement among all the scientists on monsanto's payroll, no doubt. sheesh.
--###--

original-organic consumers association

Wall Street Journal Attacks OCA for Driving rBGH off the Market & Boycotting Horizon Factory Farm Milk


**Web Note**: When the right wing extremists who control the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal attack the OCA, we know we must be doing something right. Of course we have not referred to all dairy farms as "Animal Concentration Camps," as this WSJ incorrectly states--only those intensive confinement factory farm dairies such as the ones operated by Horizon and Aurora Organic.

From: The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece from January 20-21, 2007

Udder Madness

Starbucks advertises itself as a coffee company with a social conscience. These are 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 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 at 1993 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rBGH-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."

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 bioengineering. 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?
~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[Trillo]

1. I haven't seen the price of milk fall

as a result of any of this. Perhaps the cut costs are captured by the corporate entity. All milk was rBGH free some years ago, this article even says after rBGH was introduced, consumers started paying more for rBGH free milk.

Then it skewers the left for not cheering innovations that "cut food costs". What a bunch of doublespeak.

What seems most relevant to me is that about 75% of people worldwide are lactose intolerant, so ANY milk is probably not the healthiest food to be found for those people.

[aquart]

2. Except, of course, that we're talking about milk. And milk drinkers.

Which, you know, is what makes it relevant: being the topic.