[Updated Below]
People need to get that through their thick heads.
Currently there is a bill in the ag committee in the Missouri House of Representatives that would mandate truth in labeling of dairy products that needs to be passed, business protestations aside. The bill was introduced by Rogersville Republican Mike Cunningham, and there was a committee meeting this morning. I happened to call his office to ask how the hearing went, just as he was walking in the office, and he talked to me himself and told me that it went pretty well, and I could hear him smile over the phone when he told me that he talked for about 45 minutes and didn’t leave a lot of time for opposition, by the dairy industry.
I dunno about you, but I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why the modest, common sense proposals in MO HB 2283 are even being protested.
Here are the main points of the bill:
HB 2283 — Dairy Product Labeling
Sponsor: Cunningham (145)
This bill specifies that a dairy product, except those produced
through organic farming, is misbranded if:(1) A compositional claim cannot be confirmed through laboratory
analysis;(2) A compositional claim is supported solely by sworn
statements, affidavits, or testimonials;(3) The label contains false or misleading statements,
production claims, or production composition; or(4) A statement indicates the absence of a compound not
permitted by the United States Food and Drug Administration but
it is found present in the product.
There is simply nothing there that would be onerous or represent an undue burden. Anyone put out of business by this piece of legislation that would simply demand truth in labeling of some of the foodstuffs we put in our bodies to sustain our very lives is most likely either a lousy businessman, or they are dishonest and shouldn’t be in business anyway.
I would like to encourage encourage all Missouri voters to contact their state Representative, regardless of party, and encourage him or her to support this common sense piece of legislation.
Update
Okay – I suspend support for the time being. I consulted with one of the regular commenters at my home blog. The fellow happens to be a pretty high-powered attorney here in KC, and he raised questions I would like answers to before I decide to support or oppose.
Oddly enough, what swayed me wasn’t the argument made in comments, it was science.
(1) A compositional claim cannot be confirmed through laboratory
analysis;
By what parameters? Define – compositional – 1% .01% .001%?
(3) The label contains false or misleading statements,
production claims, or production composition; or
define False define misleading – at least either false statements OR misleading statements are covered
But the final point is the one that made me slap myself in the forehead:
(4) A statement indicates the absence of a compound not
permitted by the United States Food and Drug Administration but
it is found present in the product.
Does “compound” as a very explicit term exclude elements? Elements are not “compounds.” So, Arsenic – an element – would not be covered…. neither would Antimony, Bismuth, Lead, Mercury, Sulphur, Strontium, etc. and amounts of Calcium, Phosphorous, Potassium, and Sodium in amounts greater than that meeting “organic” standards (if they exist).
Salt – NaCl is an ionic compound – that breaks into elemental form in water – so Sodium content of cheese could go off scale and not violate this bill.
Radioactive Strontium is an element that is quite rare – unless you have a reactor meltdown. Our bodies use Strontium in place of Calcium.
Strontium 90 has a half life of ~ 29 years. Chernobyl blew on April 26, 1986 – today is a mere 21 years, 11 months and 6 days later.
This bill assigns the duty to designate bad things to the federal government. Nobody wrote any acceptable levels of Strontium into the Code of Federal Regs prior to the contamination from Chernobyl. A hell of a lot of cheese (across all of Europe) had very high levels of Strontium.
Without reading the whole bill and checking to see what existing statutes are incorporated by reference or definition – I can’t say is this is a good bill. Generally, things that claim to define “organic” are problematic.
Here is the link to that comment thread.
This is a bad, bad bill. It will RESTRICT the amount of information available to consumers. It is very much anti-consumer, anti-family farmer, and pro-agribusiness.
Basically, the bill prevents dairies from labelling their milk as “hormone free” or “rBGH free.” For those of you in the KC area, that means that Shatto dairy–a family farm in Osborn, MO, that produces milk without using rBGH or other hormones with its dairy herd–is likely going out of business because they would have to replace all existing bottles. Those bottles say something to the effect that the milk is produced without using hormones–a true statement.
The supporters of this bill is Monsanto, the producer of the commercial version of rBGH. They are trying to protect their interests on this one. Blue Girl, I urge you to look into this issue a little bit more.
I formed my opinion by reading the text of the bill.
I buy that milk, too.
What I got out of reading the text of the bill was that the “organic” label could not be abused as it is now.
And in the case of individual small businesses like Schatto, I buy their milk, by the way, can’t there be a compromise? THe bill is still in committee. Wording could easily be inserted to protect the glass bottles of small businesses that would allow them to change the wording on future bottle purchases? How about the state allows a tax credit for the accrued expenses?
The wording on existing milk bottles seems a pretty thin reed to hang the opposition off of. But like I said, I will research further, and if future reading changes my wide-open mind, I will say so publicly.
That is why the bill is being pushed. In the bill text, only the bold material is new. The subsections you cite are already existing law.
Again, this is a bad bill that would be a loss for small business, consumers, and family farmers, and a win for corporate agriculture and Monsanto.
about this bill a couple of weeks ago, but I failed to point out that the bad part was stealth legislation. So when I saw your posting, Blue Girl, before I checked to see if HB 2283 was the same one I had written about, I thought, “How odd. Good consumer legislation proposed by a Republican? Is there something wrong with this picture?” That’s what tipped me off to go back and check the number. It’s not that Republicans never work for consumers. Only almost never.
The Shatto example was meant as an example only.
Subsection (12) of the bill is the only thing that will be added to the new law, and subsection (12) is directed only at dairy products, so it will not address organic misuse.
As another example, the bill proposes that a dairy product is declared to be misbranded if the label says that “this milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST.” So it’s illegal to say that even if the milk IS from cows not supplemented with rbST! This is downright Orwellian.
Why should dairies have to change their bottles at all? What is wrong with telling consumers that this bottle of milk is produced without using hormones or rBGH?