rbST
IDFA Position on Bovine Somatotropin (bST or bGH)
In response to consumer requests for more choice in the dairy aisle, many dairy processors are offering products made with milk from cows not treated with rbST, and they make that clear with production claims on their product labels. The claims simply provide information that consumers want; they do not reflect any health or safety issues.
All cows have naturally occurring bST, a protein hormone that stimulates milk production, in their systems. The protein rbST (recombinant bovine somatotropin) is a synthetically developed version of bST that is used by some farmers to supplement a cow's existing bST. Most cows given rbST through a carefully managed program will increase their milk production.
The use of rbST was approved as safe by the Food and Drug Administration in 1993. The FDA found that there is no significant difference between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST treated cows. Milk from rbST-supplemented cows has been concluded to be safe by the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Institutes of Health, the American Diabetic Association and regulatory agencies in 50 countries.
Dairy processors across the nation should follow the uniform labeling guidance regarding rbST, which was issued by the FDA in 1994. This guidance assures consumers that the dairy product claims are truthful and not misleading. IDFA supports the constitutional right of dairy processors to make truthful and not misleading claims on their labels.
Highlights about rbST
- Many milk companies have responded to consumer requests for choice in the dairy aisle, including dairy products from cows not treated with synthetic hormones. This is not related to any health or safety issue.
- Dairy companies use labels that follow FDA guidance to assure consumers that their dairy product claims are truthful and not misleading. Under the federal guidelines, processors nationwide understand what can and cannot be placed on a label regarding the use of synthetic hormones. Because these are national guidelines, dairy companies can market products locally, regionally and nationally.
- Studies have concluded that milk from animals treated with rbST is not significantly different than the wholesome product that we have enjoyed for generations. This has been affirmed and reaffirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), among many other leading health organizations.
- All milk naturally contains minute amounts of hormones, and science shows that there is no significant difference in hormone levels between organic and regular milk.
Articles
-
June 19, 2009
State Regulations on rbST Labeling -
June 8, 2009
IDFA, OTA to Appeal Labeling Litigation in Ohio; Members Urged to Engage -
May 11, 2009
State News: IDFA Urges Tennessee Governor to Veto Raw Milk Bill -
April 27, 2009
Kansas Governor Vetoes Restrictive Labeling Bill -
April 27, 2009
Elanco Commissions Consumer Study on Artificial Growth Hormones -
December 8, 2008
IDFA, Elanco Support Federal Guidelines for rbST Labeling Claims -
July 28, 2008
IDFA Files Motion in Ohio -
July 14, 2008
New Enforcement Timeline Set during Second Conference on Ohio Labeling -
July 7, 2008
Ohio Judge Holds Conference on Labeling Lawsuits -
April 28, 2008
IDFA Argues against Similar Labeling Rule in Kansas -
April 28, 2008
Ohio Committee Takes No Action, Allowing Product Labeling Rule to Stand -
April 21, 2008
IDFA Tells Ohio Legislators that Cost of Product Labeling is Grossly Underestimated -
April 14, 2008
Kansas Follows Ohio's Lead on Labeling -
March 31, 2008
Ohio Agriculture Department Revises Product Labeling Rule -
March 17, 2008
Slominski Urges Ohio Officials to Rescind Restrictive Labeling Rule -
March 10, 2008
IDFA to Support rbST Absence Labeling at Ohio Public Hearing -
March 3, 2008
Hough Testifies against Labeling Proposal in Utah; Ohio to Hold Public Hearing -
February 25, 2008
State Activity to Limit Labeling Claims regarding rbST Continues -
February 19, 2008
More States Attempt to Limit rbST Labeling -
February 4, 2008
Indiana Becomes Second State to Reject rbST Label Restrictions -
January 22, 2008
IDFA Commends Pennsylvania's Action to Rescind Product Labeling Decision -
October 29, 2007
Pennsylvania Ag Department Notifies Dairy Firms of Misleading Labels -
September 4, 2007
FTC Denies Request To Investigate rbST Claims -
February 24, 2004
IDFA Comments to FDA on ANPR for Qualified Food Health Claims/Dietary Guidance -
September 15, 2003
FDA Issues Warnings to Four Dairy Companies over Hormone-Free Claims -
June 11, 1998
FDA Publishes Guidance Document "Guidance for Industry: Notification of a Health Claim or Nutrient Content Claim Based on an Authoritative Statement of a Scientific Body



