Ohio court tells the Monsanto liars and their FDA tools that rBGH milk IS different,

[JohnyCanuck]

their lies to the contrary notwithstanding. This introduces the possibility that those states which have forbidden the "rBGH-free" label on milk from dairies not using rBGH milk may have to reverse that decision, and the sock-puppet, corporate tools known as the FDA will have to withdraw their own requirement for all milk to carry the disclaimer that there is no difference between milk derived from cows treated with rBGH and non-rBGH treated cows.

Remember way back when when several states tried to ban "rbGH-free" claims on dairy? This was a few years ago now. Monsanto, who owned rbGH at the time, helped found a group of rbGH-loving dairy farmers called AFACT. AFACT then pushed to ban any label claims telling consumers which milk came from cows that had not been treated with rbGH. Naturally, that sparked tons of consumer outrage, and ultimately AFACT was unsuccessful in most states where they tried this.

Save for Ohio. Ohio was the one last state where it looked like they might win. Ultimately the fight went to the courts. Today brought BIG news of a court decision in Ohio. The less significant news out of the court is that milk in Ohio can still say "rbGH-free" but it must also contain an FDA disclaimer saying "he FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST-supplemented cows."

Now, here's the BIG news. The court challenged the FDA's finding that there is "no measurable compositional difference" between milk from rbGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. According to those who have worked on this issue for nearly two decades now (maybe more), the FDA's claim that there was no compositional difference between milk from rbGH-treated and untreated cows was THE MAJOR roadblock to any good regulation. And the court finally struck it down, citing three reasons why the milk differs: 1. Increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, 2. A period of milk with lower nutritional quality during each lactation, and 3. Increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk).

Below, you will find the exact language of the court's ruling, as well as testimony submitted to the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee all the way back in 1993 by Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers' Union. Amazing how it only took 17 years to get the truth legally recognized.

http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/4056/big-victory-against-rbgh

[dipsydoodle]

1. K & R

Thanks for posting.

[pruple]

2. K&R

good post

[SpiralHawk]

3. More pus in the milk! Thanks a pantload Monsanto (R)

Keep your genetically mutant, hormone-and-pus-saturated milk to yourselves, RepubliCorpsters.

Americans don't want your genetically mutant synthetic hormonal Republicon pus crap.

[Enthusiast]

11. I love pus in my milk.

Yum!

[AlbertCat]

23. I love pus in my milk.

Good, 'cause it's in ALL milk. But the fact that there is more in the rBGH milk makes the product inferior to the rBGH-free stuff. It's crappy milk and so there should be something on the label at least!

[Recursion]

4. When it's a question of safety, Monsanto claims there's nothing new here

and it's exactly the same as real stuff.

When it's a question of intellectual property, Monsanto claims this is so novel and unlike what came before that they need patent protection.

[postulater]

6. Wherever the money is!

:thumbsup:

[JohnyCanuck]

5. So how did Monsanto get away with putting puss in the milk supply for profit?

It helps when the corporate media is under no legal obligation requiring them not to intentionally lie or provide misleading information to their audience.

Monsanto & Cancer Milk: FOX NEWS KILLS STORY & FIRES Reporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0

[Recursion]

7. Because libertarians do have a partial point about regulations

They mostly serve to solidify control of industries under a few big players. Which is why I don't quite get DU's rants against "corporatism", since regulated economies pretty much have to favor large corporations as a matter of course.

[JohnyCanuck]

10. Maybe you could explain further

I take it that you accept that there should still be some regulations requiring some level of testing and review for safety on what substances dairy farmers are permitted to inject into their cows to increase milk production, or on what substances a corporation's scientists can cook up in a lab and then sell to dairy farmers to increase their milk production?

I can quite accept that there is a balance that has to be struck between a level of regulation needed for public safety and to keep knowingly harmful substances from widespread introduction into the market place and regulation that is used more to enlarge the budgets and power of bureaucratic fiefdoms or to enhance the profits of large and influential corporations than to keep the public safe.

[Recursion]

13. I'll do my best

I take it that you accept that there should still be some regulations requiring some level of testing and review for safety on what substances dairy farmers are permitted to inject into their cows to increase milk production, or on what substances a corporation's scientists can cook up in a lab and then sell to dairy farmers to increase their milk production?

Certainly, and any testing regime will always favor a more centralized, industrialized way of producing food.

I can quite accept that there is a balance that has to be struck between a level of regulation needed for public safety and to keep knowingly harmful substances from widespread introduction into the market place and regulation that is used more to enlarge the budgets and power of bureaucratic fiefdoms or to enhance the profits of large and influential corporations than to keep the public safe.

I agree wholeheartedly. My point was that it's not a simple split between either having government regulations or having corporate power. Government regulations (even effective, well-meaning ones) are one of the important means corporations use to become larger and more powerful.

[bertman]

16. I take exception to the following statement:

"I take it that you accept that there should still be some regulations requiring some level of testing and review for safety on what substances dairy farmers are permitted to inject into their cows to increase milk production, or on what substances a corporation's scientists can cook up in a lab and then sell to dairy farmers to increase their milk production?"

"Certainly, and any testing regime will always favor a more centralized, industrialized way of producing food."

Why in the world would ANY testing regime always favor a more centralized, industrialized way of producing food?

Here's an example of one that does not. When health inspectors from the state of Virginia tested the open-air facilities used to slaughter and process chickens at certain facilities in Virginia that were operated by small organic farmers, they found that the open-air facilities were cleaner and had a lower bacteria count than the shiny, stainless-steel, indoor processing facilities operated by the industrial chicken processors.

[mdmc]

8. r

[L0oniX]

9. When little girls grow tits way before their time, there's got to be a reason...

and something different in the food. Trust Monsanto or the FDA? O yea ...sure.

[Recursion]

14. That may have more to do with soy-based infant formula (nt)

[tavalon]

22. We currently have the highest

Rate of babies being breastfed in America. In my generation, mom's didn't breastfeed and yet we didn't have high rates of early menarche. Nope, I think it's the hormones and the endocrine disruptors in plastic today that are responsible.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. K & R

[pleah]

15. K&R

[Bozita]

17. Steve Wilson and Jane Akers must be smiling at this.

It's all here:
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/


Hidden Danger in Your Milk?
JURY VERDICT OVERTURNED ON LEGAL TECHNICALITY


Welcome to the online news source for anyone who drinks milk or consumes other dairy products…and depends on the news media to report suspected health concerns accurately and honestly.

Here you will find behind-the-scenes details about how a large share of America’s milk supply has quietly become adulterated with the effects of a synthetic hormone (bovine growth hormone, or BGH) secretly injected into cows…and how pressure from the hormone maker Monsanto led Fox TV to fire two of its award-winning reporters and sweep under the rug much of what they discovered but were never allowed to broadcast.

After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees.

Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions. CLICK HERE for more details on latest ruling. CLICK HERE to view how Fox13 reported the ruling.

The whistle-blowing journalists, twice refused Fox offers of big-money deals to keep quiet about what they knew, filed their landmark lawsuit April 2, 1998 and survived three Fox efforts to have their case summarily dismissed. It is the first time journalists have used a whistleblower law to seek a legal remedy for being fired by for refusing to distort the news. Steve and Jane are now considering an appeal to the Florida state Supreme Court.

The journalists happen to be married to each other and this website, created by their friend and former television news producer Jon Duffey, was posted on the day the whistleblower suit was filed. It continues to provide details of the suit and subsequent appeals, as well as recent developments regarding rBGH and other genetically engineered foods.

more...

[Redstone]

18. Monsanto is the closest thing to pure evil that many of us may encounter.

I'm a capitalist. I like money. I believe in business, and own one myself - an advertising and marketing agency.

But there are some lines that should never be crossed. In my agency's best years, I've billed about $250,000...but I swear to God, if Monsanto approached me with an opportunity to bill them ten million dolls a year, for ten years guaranteed, I'd tell them to go take a hike.

Call me elitist if you will, but there are some (actually many) things I refuse to do in pursuit of the Godalmighty dollar. I'd rather live under a bridge than make a single buck from the evil likes of Monsanto.

I simply cannot understand how the management people at Monsanto can bear to look at themselves in the mirror. I just can't.

Redstone

[SpiralHawk]

19. The problem with Monsanto is that is has 'Republicon Family Values'

Unfortunately, Americans are well acquainted with the level of debasement that phrase denotes.

[indimuse]

20. KNR! n/t

[era veteran]

21. Monsanto the Evil Empire .. K&R

Is there anything this gang of criminals will not fuck up?