FDA Says “Pretty Please” to Drug Corporations (again)

Today the Food & Drug Administration’s Michael Taylor announced that the FDA will be asking pharmaceutical corporations to stop marketing their human-approved antibiotics to cattle, hog and poultry producers. Yes, that’s right: The FDA will be “asking” the corporations to stop what is widely considered a practice that is dangerous to both farm animals and those who eat them.

According to the FDA, drug corporations sold nearly 30 millions pounds of antibiotics to meat and poultry producers in 2011. That represents nearly 80% of all antibiotic sales in the nation, with the remaining 20% being for human uses.

This widespread use of antibiotics in farm animals being raised for human consumption is being blamed for the dramatic increase in bacterial infections that are antibiotic-resistant in humans. The overuse of antibiotics leads to bacterial resistance to the drugs over time. Antibiotic-resistant illnesses now claim the lives of over 20,000 U.S. citizens a year.

So why is the FDA merely “asking” for the drug corporations to do the right thing? That’s an easy one: Because the drug corporations all but run the FDA.

Take Michael Taylor, the FDA official who announced today’s FDA begging…I mean… asking. Taylor is the former attorney for and vice president of the Monsanto Corporation, where he helped usher in all kinds of dangerous food technologies like genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) before becoming an FDA regulator for those same technologies.

Today’s so-called “action” from Taylor and the FDA is an embarrassingly weak effort to combat a very serious problem in the U.S. food supply. The FDA has all the power and evidence it needs to do what must be done: Issue an immediate ban on the unnecessary use of antibiotics in livestock and poultry.

Until then, if you eat meat, protect yourself by seeking local and organic sources.

Cabot Creamery Admits to Misleading Consumers about rBGH-free Claims

Below is the press release from the Vermont Attorney General’s office regarding the settlement they reached with Cabot Creamery for misleading consumers about their rBGH-free claims.


MONTPELIER, VT 05609-1001

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:    August 3, 2011
CONTACT: William H. Sorrell Attorney General (802) 828-3173
Elliot Burg Assistant Attorney General (802) 828-5507


Agri-Mark, Inc., a Methuen, Massachusetts-based dairy cooperative that does business under the name Cabot Creamery Cooperative, has agreed to settle claims by Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell that the company misrepresented the “rBST-free” nature of the milk used to make some of its products. Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), is a synthesized hormone that is sometimes given to dairy cows by injection to increase milk production. The settlement requires Agri-Mark to pay $65,000 to the State of Vermont, to donate $75,000 worth of dairy products to local food banks, and to take steps to prevent misrepresentations in the future and accurately inform the public as to the rBST status of its products.

Commenting on the settlement, Attorney General Sorrell said that consumers need to be able to trust public statements and labeling claims about the food they buy, especially when it comes to attributes they care about, such as the use of hormones to produce the milk from which dairy products are made. “There is no excuse for shading the truth about rBST or any other aspect of our food supply,” he added.

Agri-Mark produces and markets a variety of value-added dairy products, including cheeses, dairy spreads, butter and whipped cream, many under the Cabot brand. Some of these items are made from milk that is certified by farmers as rBST-free; others are made from milk that is not so certified, recently including Swiss cheese, mozzarella cheese, whipped cream, American cheese, Colby Jack cheese, Monterey Jack cheese, cheddar powder, butter, muenster cheese, full-fat pepper jack cheese, horseradish cheese, New York extra sharp cheese, and spreadable cheddar cheese.

Nonetheless, during the years 2009 and 2010, Agri-Mark staff stated in emails to members of the public and on the company’s Facebook page that “NO milk containing antibiotics or rBST (rBGH growth hormone) is ever allowed for processing” (emphasis in original). Company personnel also stated in emails to members of the public that the “milk delivered to our two plants in Vermont and our plant in Massachusetts for Cabot Cheese is rBST[-free] … These are the only plants that Cabot has for processing milk to produce our cheeses”; that “all Cabot Butter salted and unsalted [is] produced from milk that [is] rBST … free”; and that members of the public would eventually see a no-artificial-growth hormone icon “on all Cabot packaging.” In addition, in 2009, letters were released from Agri-Mark’s President and General Manager that said that the company’s board of directors had voted to no longer accept milk from cows treated with rBST, and that Agri-Mark would “no longer [be] accepting such milk as of August 1, 2009.”

According to the Attorney General, as a result of these kinds of public statements, reasonable consumers were likely to conclude that all of Cabot’s products were rBST-free when in fact they were not, in violation of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act’s ban on deceptive trade practices.

Although the FDA has found no significant difference between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows, many Vermont consumers are concerned about the use of rBST to treat dairy cows, and rBST affects those consumers’ purchasing decisions.

Under the Attorney General’s settlement, Agri-Mark may not misstate or mislabel the rBST status of its products. Included in this prohibition are labels that overstate the rBST-free nature of a product, including unqualified statements like “Our farmers pledge not to use rBST”—a statement that currently accompanies Cabot’s “No Bovine Growth Hormone” logo and misleadingly suggests that all farmers who sell milk to Agri-Mark have taken such a pledge. Agri-Mark must also list all of its non-rBST-free products on its website for three years, provide a list of non-rBST-free products in response to public inquiries made during a fourth year, and phase out packaging bearing the “our farmers pledge” statement over the next six months

The Good & The Bad: Feds Axe Meat Irradiation Scheme

Yesterday, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) rejected a petition by the American Meat Institute (AMI) to allow the irradiation of beef carcasses, a petition that was more about short-circuiting labeling requirements than anything else since the irradiation of processed beef has already been approved in the U.S.

Current beef irradiation regulations allow for processed beef or beef patties to be exposed to radiation the equivalent of tens of millions of chest x-rays. But the regulations also call for such products to be labeled as “irradiated” or “treated by radiation” in order to inform the consumer.

Citing the fact that the irradiation label was “scaring” the consumer away, the AMI – a trade association representing all of “big beef” – was hoping to get an approval to irradiate entire beef carcasses and, thus, avoid informing the consumer that the hamburgers (or steaks, roasts, etc.) from that carcass was exposed to radiation.

This isn’t the first – or last, most likely – attempt by the industrial food industry to kill the labeling of irradiated foods. Instead of addressing the filthy nature of their industrialism, the corporations monopolizing the food supply would like to hide the filth by exposing it to radiation.

Forgetting, of course, to ponder the consequences of consuming radiation-exposed foods. Yes, there is that to worry about. Just as there should be ample worry about the irradiation facilities themselves, which, even in their infancy, have been plagued with nuclear leaks and mishaps.

But this battle is far from over. The food corporations will not miss a chance to attack irradiation labeling or to promote new uses for irradiation (sprouts?). Thankfully, every underhanded attempt to promote this unnecessarily dangerous technology has failed because people have consistently rallied to reject it.

If you’d like to read more, you can do so at the appropriately named, Food Poison Journal.


Irradiated Filth is Still…Filth.

(Credit: John Jonik)