State prohibits labeling milk as hormone-free

There are 11 comments on the Nov 14, 2007, The Morning Call story titled State prohibits labeling milk as hormone-free. In it, The Morning Call reports that:

Pennsylvania is stopping dairies from stamping milk containers with hormone-free labels in a precedent-setting decision being closely watched by the industry.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Morning Call.


Walnutport, PA

#1 Nov 14, 2007
If I want to buy milk that was from a cow not treated with hormones, that is my prerogative. I think it tastes better, too!
3 Stooges

Emmaus, PA

#2 Nov 14, 2007
So labeling milk, as "Whole", "2%", "1%" and skim is ok and doesn't convey one milk better than the other, but adding to the label hormone free is bad.

Yeah, excellent logic. Some politicians got some nice kick backs on this decision.

Emmaus, PA

#4 Nov 14, 2007
This is absolutely ridiculous. To whom can we complain? Absolutely disgusting.

I'll continue to buy the brands I usually do (which are currently labeled 'hormone-free') and hope they don't start treating the cows again.

We need to do a mass complaint about this!!! Consumers have a RIGHT to know what they are buying.

Emmaus, PA

#5 Nov 14, 2007
P.S.: I just went to PA's agriculture page and clicked on the email link for Wolff. Guess what? I got this message:

"This form has been temporarily removed."

So I guess I'll just have to pick up the phone!
Andrew Stein

Cranbury, NJ

#6 Nov 14, 2007
If rBST is undetectable in milk then it is appropriate to ban advertising that the milk is hormone-free, as it is misleading - the statement could be made about treated cows. It is dead wrong to prohibit information about whether the cows are treated with rBST. If I wanted to advertise that my cows listened to classical music - does the state have a legal justification to say I can't say that (even though classical music is undetectable in the milk)? Of course not.

Since: Apr 07

Lehigh Valley

#7 Nov 14, 2007
Big Pharma rears its ugly head again. Good for Big Business, bad for the consumer. Typical.

Norristown, PA

#8 Nov 14, 2007
If someone wants to pay more for milk from cows that have not used the hormone, they should be able to.
Just another indication that the politics is driven not by truth and right, but by the almighty dollar (soon to be remni or ruble....)

Bethlehem, PA

#9 Nov 14, 2007
What can I add that hasn't been said?This sickens my soul and enrages me! I feel like the world has turned into Wonderland and I'm an Alice trying to find sanity and reason in a topsy-turvy world.
Isn't it ironic that an excuse made for this nonsense is "an unjustified higher price" as if Wolff is championing the consumer yet he pays no heed to the consumers who chose not to buy/consume genetically altered food when they are aware of it.
And this quote in the article attribued to Wolff: "It's kind of like a nuclear arms race," Wolff said. "One dairy does it and the next tries to outdo them. It's absolutely crazy."
Huh? Maybe he's right...if you equate the poison from nuclear weapons to the poisoning to the cows and links to cancer in humans from being subjected to this pharmaceutical. Yup...that's crazy.

Bethlehem, PA

#10 Nov 14, 2007
This is from the PA governer's website on his cabinet member, Mr. Wolff:
"Wolff, a dairy farmer, owns Pen-Col Farms, a 600-acre, 400-head dairy cattle operation specializing in purebred Holstein genetics."
I wonder what practices he is using on his own herd?

Fairport, NY

#11 Nov 14, 2007
Hope wrote:
This is from the PA governer's website on his cabinet member, Mr. Wolff:
"Wolff, a dairy farmer, owns Pen-Col Farms, a 600-acre, 400-head dairy cattle operation specializing in purebred Holstein genetics."
I wonder what practices he is using on his own herd?
I've heard that Wolff uses rBST on his cows.
Mr Wolff is also in favor of assigning USDA premise IDs to every property in the state that has even a single livestock animal on it. That includes horses and pets that will never enter the food chain. Just this past June, PDA was sued by a Mennonite farmer for violation of his 1st Amendment rights when they threatened to put him out of business if he didn't accept a premise ID.
After the suit was filed, they backed off and said it was a misunderstanding. Yeah, right!

United States

#12 Nov 14, 2007
We have all been drinking "enhanced-enriched" milk since the 40's. Got any tumors growing out of your forehead?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monsanto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Carl Casale, president and CEO of CHS Inc. Jan '15 carl 1
News GMO battles over 'settled' science spur new stu... Nov '14 One way or another 2
News Colorado ballot decisions include personhood, G... (Sep '14) Sep '14 Sneaky Pete 6,..not.. (Mar '13) Jun '14 What 9
News Organic Consumers Association: Divest Monsanto ... (May '14) May '14 frontporchreactio... 1
News GMO critics protest at Monsanto meeting; resolu... (Jan '14) May '14 BEN GURION Scandals 6
News Earnings Expectations For The Week Of September... (Sep '13) Oct '13 PinkNBrains 6
More from around the web