- In this report
- TEST INFORM PROTECT ®
- Our mission
- Overview
- From our president
- Viewpoint
- Our history
- No Commercial Use Policy
- ConsumerReports.org staff
- Senior Leadership Team
- Board members
- Our annual report
- How we test
- How we survey
- Lab tour
- Vintage test photos
- Where to find us
- Career opportunities
July 2008
|
||
|
||
3 things you should know about your food
The cattle industry and related agribusiness interests seem to think that an uninformed consumer is their best customer. Consumers
Union disagrees. You deserve answers to the following questions about your milk and meat:
ANY ARTIFICIAL HORMONES?
Since Monsanto introduced recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) to the market in 1994, some 20 percent of dairy cows have gotten the drug. It increases milk output but also increases udder infections in cows and levels in milk of insulin-like growth factor-1. IGF-1 stimulates tumor growth, but whether enough is present in milk to affect human health is disputed. Consumers, however, have switched in droves to milk labeled free of rbGH.
Monsanto's answer? Keep "rbGH- free" off the label. The dairy farmers who support the product have pushed at least a half-dozen states to propose laws or regulations that would prohibit dairies from labeling their milk "rbGH-free" or would impose such onerous requirements about type styles and placement of statements that milk producers would find it hard to comply. Some restrictions are already in effect in Pennsylvania; at press time, restrictions were expected to go into effect in Ohio. Efforts have stalled elsewhere.
IS IT FROM CLONED ANIMALS?
In January, the Food and Drug Administration stated that milk and meat from cloned animals are safe and don't need to be labeled. This despite the fact that a majority of clones are born deformed or sickly. The FDA claims that the meat-inspection system catches sick animals at the slaughterhouse, so only healthy clones that pose no food-safety risk will make it into the food supply. However, a February recall of 143 million pounds of beef because cows too sick to stand entered the food supply casts doubt on the FDA's assurances.
Bills that require clone labeling have been introduced in Congress and in nine states. California's governor vetoed one last year, but public opinion may push legislators there and elsewhere to act.
WAS THIS MEAT RECALLED?
The Department of Agriculture doesn't reveal the names of stores involved in a meat recall, nor does it share them with state public-health officials unless they agree to keep the list secret. Two years ago California began requiring retailers and food companies that carried recalled meat to inform state health officials, who may then notify the public. So after the huge beef recall in February, California consumers could find out where it was sold. Consumers in the rest of the country could not.
Congress is considering requiring the USDA to do the same nationwide. The cattle and food industries have opposed the agency's making the change on its own.
Consumers Union believes you have a right to know what is and isn't in your food. Such information is good for consumers and essential to a free market.
FULL DISCLOSURE Labels like this are under attack in some states.
ANY ARTIFICIAL HORMONES?
Since Monsanto introduced recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) to the market in 1994, some 20 percent of dairy cows have gotten the drug. It increases milk output but also increases udder infections in cows and levels in milk of insulin-like growth factor-1. IGF-1 stimulates tumor growth, but whether enough is present in milk to affect human health is disputed. Consumers, however, have switched in droves to milk labeled free of rbGH.
Monsanto's answer? Keep "rbGH- free" off the label. The dairy farmers who support the product have pushed at least a half-dozen states to propose laws or regulations that would prohibit dairies from labeling their milk "rbGH-free" or would impose such onerous requirements about type styles and placement of statements that milk producers would find it hard to comply. Some restrictions are already in effect in Pennsylvania; at press time, restrictions were expected to go into effect in Ohio. Efforts have stalled elsewhere.
IS IT FROM CLONED ANIMALS?
In January, the Food and Drug Administration stated that milk and meat from cloned animals are safe and don't need to be labeled. This despite the fact that a majority of clones are born deformed or sickly. The FDA claims that the meat-inspection system catches sick animals at the slaughterhouse, so only healthy clones that pose no food-safety risk will make it into the food supply. However, a February recall of 143 million pounds of beef because cows too sick to stand entered the food supply casts doubt on the FDA's assurances.
Bills that require clone labeling have been introduced in Congress and in nine states. California's governor vetoed one last year, but public opinion may push legislators there and elsewhere to act.
WAS THIS MEAT RECALLED?
The Department of Agriculture doesn't reveal the names of stores involved in a meat recall, nor does it share them with state public-health officials unless they agree to keep the list secret. Two years ago California began requiring retailers and food companies that carried recalled meat to inform state health officials, who may then notify the public. So after the huge beef recall in February, California consumers could find out where it was sold. Consumers in the rest of the country could not.
Congress is considering requiring the USDA to do the same nationwide. The cattle and food industries have opposed the agency's making the change on its own.
Consumers Union believes you have a right to know what is and isn't in your food. Such information is good for consumers and essential to a free market.
