As more milk bottling companies declare they are going “BST free,” the farm community is left to wonder how wise it is and who is getting the extra money being paid by consumers.

That was the dilemma discussed Thursday, Feb. 23, at the N.Y. Farm Show, and Jonathan Taylor, a board of directors member for New York Farm Bureau, was one of four panelists invited to address the big question. Here are Taylor’s remarks:

My name is Jonathan Taylor. I am a dairy farmer from Newark, N.Y., located in Ontario County where I milk 100 cows. As a member of the New York Farm Bureau Board of Directors, I am here today representing the organization which develops policy at the grassroots level. As an organization, and as a dairy producer myself, I am very concerned from a consumer standpoint, and from a producer standpoint, about what is happening in the marketplace regarding the labeling of milk from rbST treated cows.

Current New York Farm Bureau policy, as approved by our delegates at our most recent annual meeting states, “We support the use of new, safe, technologies in dairy production, and oppose restrictions on such use. If restrictions are placed on the use of safe technologies, we support the payment of premiums to offset any financial loss by the discontinued use of the technology”.

As you know, rbST is an FDA approved product that dairy farmers can safely use to enhance milk production in dairy cows as studies have shown that there is no difference between milk from cows that were treated with rbST, versus cows that have not been treated.

However, much to the dismay of our farmer members, we are concerned that producers are being asked by their dairy cooperatives and milk handlers to sign affidavits promising that they will not use the rbST technology on their farms. At the same time, producers are not being offered a premium that will cover the lost income that will occur by not using the technology. This goes against New York Farm Bureau’s policy which supports the payment of premiums to offset any financial loss by the discontinued use of the technology.

The other fear, from a producer standpoint, is that once rbST is restricted by processors and retailers, what technology will be next? How far down the slipperyslope will this trend go? As producers, will we be restricted from using artificial insemination, vaccines, reproductive hormones, and medications? Will we lose cows if we cannot use FDA-approved technology to improve herd health and possibly save their lives? As stated above, New York Farm Bureau supports the use of new, safe, technology and opposes the restrictions on such use.

Producers will not only lose money, they will lose choices in production methods as retailers insist that farmers produce milk from cows not treated with rbST. From a consumer standpoint, in New York State as well as other regions in the Northeast, milk, in retail outlets, is increasingly being labeled as “from cows not treated with artificial growth hormone.” The unfortunate result of this misleading labeling gimmick is that consumers are led to believe that milk that is labeled as such, is somehow more healthy and safer than milk from cows treated with rbST. As I am sure that you are well aware, that is far from truth.

Consumers do not realize that when purchasing milk labeled as rbST free, that they are basically paying extra money for a pretty label on a milk carton, and not paying more money for a product that is safer than milk that has no special, pretty label. Let’s hope too that milk consumption overall, will not decrease because consumers cannot afford higher prices for the labeled milk, and will fear buying the unlabeled milk because they think it is unsafe. If this is the case, then consumers lose by giving up a healthy, affordable, safe, nutritious product. Back in November of 2006, New York Farm Bureau President John Lincoln, submitted a letter to the FDA strongly urging the agency to regulate the labeling of milk. Milk labeled, “from cows not treated with artificial growth hormone” is deemed as misleading labeling.

President Lincoln requested that the FDA take immediate action by requiring such labels on milk be removed until credible, peer reviewed, scientific evidence show health or food safety concerns resulting from farmers using rbST technology in milk production.

President Lincoln’s letter also reiterated to the FDA that current scientific research has shown there to be no difference in milk from a health, quality, safety, or compositional aspect that is a result of cows receiving rbST to enhance production. President Lincoln’s letter went on to say, “Retailers attempts to capture a relatively stable market by misleading the public into believing that milk from non-rbST treated cows is somehow more desirable than “regular” milk is just wrong and a marketing gimmick.” New York Farm Bureau is concerned because a response has not come from the FDA regarding our organization’s position on this issue, and will continue to follow up with the FDA.

In response to this labeling issue, New York Farm Bureau has responded to media inquiries, producer questions, and consumer questions, stating our position as noted above.