The Move to Label Milk Hormone-free Hits Snags that Affect Food Companies

By Karen Pemberton, Nerac Analyst
Whether in a daily latte or on the morning cereal, milk is clearly a staple in the American diet. However, the question more and more consumers are asking is whether that milk is free of the synthetic growth hormones that for at least 15 years have been administered almost routinely to dairy cows in America to increase production. While farmers are not required to disclose the use of growth hormones in their husbandry practices, increasing numbers of distributors are promoting hormone-free milk. Even so, some states are considering restrictions on hormone-free labeling in the belief that the distinction implies that milk from hormone-treated cows is somehow unsafe.

Companies such as Starbucks are already removing milk from hormone-treated cows from their cafés. Kraft, which makes Velveeta and Cheez-whiz, recently announced plans to release a new line of cheeses manufactured from milk produced from hormone-free cows beginning in June 2008. Kraft intends to get the ball rolling with a hormone-free version of its premium line of 2 percent milk cheese products.

Demand is expected to increase
Pressure from such industry behemoths may well increase the overall demand for milk produced without synthetic hormones. While the costs for manufacturing such specialized products will likely be higher, consumers seem willing to pay the extra cost, which is typically 25 percent higher.

Given increasing demand for hormone-free milk, these dairy products will undoubtedly be a profitable enterprise. Following the announcement from Kraft, we can expect other major food companies to quickly follow suit with hormone-free cream, butter, cheeses, ice creams and yogurts putting further pressure on the dairy industry to supply hormone-free milk.

Differing standards in Europe and the U.S.
Along with Mexico and Brazil, the U.S. is among a small handful of industrialized countries using hormones to enhance milk yield. Europe had originally approved the hormone rbST for use in 1990 but later in 1993 placed a moratorium on the sale and importation of milk from treated cows in 27 European nations claiming that the safety was unproven. Canada later followed suit.

The U.S. FDA approved the use of rbST in dairy herds in 1993. Along with the National Institutes of Health, National Dairy Council and even the former Surgeon General Everett Koop, the FDA said that milk from treated cows is safe, finding no direct scientific evidence that such milk poses a risk to the consumer. However, critics maintain that the milk from treated cows is nutritionally and chemically different from milk from untreated cows and that no long-term studies have been completed regarding its safety.

The NIH did conclude that administering rbST to dairy cows does result in an increase in the production of IGF-1, a hormone indistinguishable from human IGF-1. This hormone accumulates in the udder and increases the risk of mastitis for the cow, necessitating the regular, if not continual, use of antibiotics in those herds. IGF-1 has been linked to a number of disorders in humans including prostate, breast and lung cancer, as well as premature breast enlargement in children. However, the FDA maintained in a statement issued in 2000 that the amount of IGF-1 present in milk would not significantly alter the levels already present endogenously in the human body. It said that IGF-1 levels in human plasma are naturally much higher than those found in the milk of treated cows and that no oral toxicity was found in animal studies.

Requirements Present Challenges
Meanwhile, Kraft will undoubtedly label its new line of products as hormone-free. But it might not be so easy. Pennsylvania, the fifth largest U.S. dairy state, had intended as of Feb. 1, 2008 to ban milk carton labeling marking the contents as “hormone-free” or as including “no artificial hormone.” The argument against such absence labeling is that it unfairly influences consumers into thinking that milk from treated herds is somehow unsafe. Then in early February 2008 the high-profile ice cream company, Ben & Jerry’s, publicly declared its opposition to such labeling bans and has started to label some of its ice cream products as hormone-free. Bowing to public concern, in January Pennsylvania backed down on imposing the “hormone-free” milk labels ban.

In neighboring Ohio, a temporary ruling mandated that label wording must be specific: “from cows not supplemented with rbST.” They also must contain an FDA disclaimer stating, “No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST-supplemented cows.” In sharp contrast to the strict process required to be certified “organic,” the use of “artificial growth hormone-free” labeling has historically required only a pledge from the farmers supplying the milk. The ruling in Ohio further requires that distributors must hold certain verification, such as affidavits, from the farmers supplying the rbST free milk. The ruling will remain in effect for 90 days while a permanent ruling is crafted.

If nothing else, the debate is likely to increase consumer awareness, and for food companies that use milk in their formulations, it raises interesting issues and opportunities to tap into consumer concern. However, if states impose differing label requirements, marketing challenges could arise that for now might best be avoided. It also remains to be seen whether state bans on milk-carton labeling, should they proliferate, will apply to products made from hormone-free milk whose producers wish to point out that attribute. The ideal solution would be a national standard, but that raises the question of whether the FDA will even weigh in on this issue.