Many times I have told the story President Ronald Reagan used to tell about three guys who stop in a diner for lunch: A grumpy waitress takes their orders, and all the guys order the same thing - a cheeseburger and a glass of milk. But the last guy says, "Bring my milk in a clean glass. The last time you brought the milk in a dirty glass." The waitress stomps off to the kitchen. When she comes back, she serves the cheeseburgers and then asks, "Okay, who gets the clean glass?" This simple illustration can be used a number of ways. Several points can be made, but I usually encourage people to be involved and ask for what they want. Don't just let the system - any system - give you whatever is left over. If you want government to give you the clean glass, ask for it. You may not get it, but at least you asked. Continuing on this milk theme, I filed a bill on milk labeling, House Bill 1300. The bill simply stated that processors could not make labeling claims that they could not substantiate by laboratory analysis. The origin of the bill is an actual situation affecting many small- and medium-sized dairy farms in Indiana. Processors, who purchase the dairymen's milk, are demanding that they sign an affidavit stating there is no rBST used on the cows to enhance production. The product, rBST, is recombinant bovine somatotropin and is a naturally occurring growth hormone that caused high-producing cows to give 20 to 25 percent more milk. The product is administered twice a month to the best cows. This Monsanto produced hormone is FDA approved and has been used for 15 years. There is no lab text to determine if the product has been used because all milk contains BST. It occurs naturally in all milk whether a cow has been treated or not. Critics of the product say it is contained in milk and has a detrimental effect on young people and adults. Their claims can't be proven by laboratory analysis but that doesn't matter. Consumers are starting to demand labeling such as, "organic, hormone free and antibiotic free." Processors are under pressure to provide milk with such a label. They can charge more for milk with such a label. It is a marketing ploy by retailers of milk, and consumers are more and more likely to believe the label. Here is the rub: The dairy farmers are being required to stop using a legal product, one that is labeled safe by the FDA, and that means much lower milk production, all with no financial consideration for the loss in production. In other words, the retailers may charge more for their product, while the farmers must cut the production by their dairy cows. It is a very one-sided situation. Either the farmers stop using the rBST or their milk will have to be sold to a cheese producer for a dramatically lower price. The economic burden is all borne by the dairy farmer. We have the safest, cheapest and best food production system in world. HB 1300 simply extends this by demanded truth in labeling and implied fair treatment of the farmers. The bill got a unanimous vote out of the House Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and was on second reading before the full House. Then the barrage occurred! My colleagues in the House were receiving up to 500 e-mails opposing HB 1300. I was confronted with opposition from all sides. The processors, plus a consumer group called Citizens for Health, bombarded the House and Senate with messages of opposition. Rather than have the bill killed by a vote in the House, I let the measure die on the calendar. My plan is to direct the Board of Animal Health to study, review and recommend better labeling for all fluid milk products. I know this subject is not a "hot button" issue for most people, but I wanted to communicate the diversity of issues that come from representing this district. Fair dealing and consumer awareness are not always easy to accomplish. This issue has reinforced it once again. Please continue to give me your issues, and keep asking for the clean glass. I appreciate your communications.
|
