This ridiculousness has already played out in PA. I actually listened to a one-hr talk show about this where the industry guy (who was a professor) insisted that consumers already have a choice which is to pay higher rates for milk branded as organic or the cheaper stuff that may or may not have the artificial hormones. I followed his arguments for as long as I could and then had to turn it off. But I gather that there are other issues related to dairy farmers not liking the various classifications and experience the system of categories as being very expensive/restrictive for them in managing their inventories. Something about truck deliveries and blending milk from different farms or different herds within the same truck. So there are many different issues going on at the same time. But it sounded like they want to just keep the choice as organic or regular bc organic sells at much higher rates. There may be genuine bricks & mortar issues regarding the distribution system which are a burden to small dairy farmers. Either way, PA is keeping the three categories for now (last I heard).

Monsanto claims that such labeling implies that growth hormones are harmful...

I do see your point. However, Monsanto is asserting that its brand would be devalued by allowing the "no hormones" labeling, and I think they may be right. For the last few decades, "natural", "fat free", "nothing artificial added", etc. have been labeling that has been promoted as superior. So much so that you can now pay 50% more for your groceries at Whole Foods (I like to call them 'Whole Paycheck'). And there are people that do so gladly.
So here comes Ben and Jerry and implies that their ice cream is superior by labeling it "hormome free" which makes Monsanto's brands second tier.

Just wanted to bring out the opposing view.

El Viajero wrote, Just wanted to bring out the opposing view.

You meant "the wrong view."

However, Monsanto is asserting that its brand would be devalued by allowing the "no hormones" labeling, and I think they may be right.

Tough. If B&J labels said "no hormones, which we know for a fact is better and has these superior health outcomes," you and Monsanto would have a point.

But (assuming Dean quoted the story right), they didn't. So you don't.

By the way, Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?

El Viajero, we know what Monsanto's reasoning is, thats precisely what makes this whole situation absurd.

Just to copy Dean's example "Are Nike shoes better because Michael Jordon endorses them?"; wouldn't the air jordan logo "devalue" shoes made by adidas that don't have an air jordan logo? After all aren't kids buying his shoes thinking that the best player must wear the best shoes? Or vice versa, "its gotta be the shoes" (mars blackmon)

Monsanto doesn't have a leg to stand on. Next thing you know sugar cane farmers will be suing fruit juice makers who advertise "no sugar" on their product.

Just a side note: I know the topic isn't whether or not there is scientific evidence supporting monsanto's claim, but lets be honest, they have a long and ugly history of suppressing scientific evidence that may hurt their profitability. The EU, Japan and Canada have refused to let farmers sell milk with RBH. As for the FDA, well there have been many reports that their trial of the drug was compromised.

Monsanto should make sure testing is actually carried out on all these organic foods, while testing and proving their roundup corn is not systemically
poisoned. We should also know by labeling cloned-beef & have the choice, how can you give the FDA needed oversightfunding while SPENDING $300 MILLION A DAY ON AN ILLEGAL WAR?

liberal, that "real vs royal" essay was interesting & illuminating. I'm not really a geolibertarian nor a royal libertarian, but the concepts in the essay help to clarify the issues, I think.

This reminds me of a fight about a beef processor who wanted to test every animal slaughtered for mad cow disease. One of the large beef producers complained. I am not sure how it turned out.

It is interesting when they say, let the market sort it out, what they really mean is let the market sort it out if it is my favor...

All Ben & Jerry have to do, if Monsanto pulled this off, was put a political message on their ice cream saying they oppose the use of hormones on cows for ethical reasons.
Without indicating what may be in the Cherry Garcia.
Then it becomes a matter of protected free speech.
Issue over.

Excuse my incorrect use of verbs in the above post.

Funny how "free market" types always fall down splat, and I mean really hard on their faces, every single time on the idea of informed customers voting with their dollars.

If Monsanto's brand is devalued by their product being considered by customers to be less valuable, how is that -- the essense of free market -- bad? Bad for them, sure, but who cares except them? Why should we be in the business of propping up their business? Let them change it to conform with customer wishes in the free market.

I prefer milk from cows without grows hormones for ethical reasons, I want to be soft on cows. I find the currently required labeling in Minnesota already heavily tilted to agrobusiness favors: "Not treated with rBST/rBGH - no significant difference has been shown between milk from rBST/rBGH treated or non rBST/rBGH treated cows". Why does my milk needs to carry a scientific disclaimer besides the pure information while milk from rBST/rBGH treated cows doesn't have to show anything. Well, at least, I can tell what I buy - I find Monsantos initiative to prohibit any labels highly offensive.

monsanto seeks government intervention to protect it's interests in marketplace

a good example the of free-market, free-trade philosophy of the fortune 500

Latest word is the protectionists, led by Monsanto, want to make it illegal for people to buy ice cream from milk that was produced by cows not given growth hormones.

No, that's not what the word is. There's nothing in the rest of the article about Monsanto seeking to prevent the sale of ice cream made from non-hormone-charged milk. The question is one of labeling and of advertising, and while it's important, the above is just plain sloppy work.

This whole dialog is dumb. Dean's original point is to hoist anti-protectionist free traders on their own petard. That's fine. I applaud that point.

However, in the comments any sense of the original message is lost.

Also Dean is inaccurate in his Nike metaphor. If you assume that Monsanto is right on the science (and the many government regulators who have looked at it), the proper analogy is a government rule requiring labelling of shoes with the false warning that shoes with three stripes are dangerous for you health. Addidas would be right to complain because the claim is false and can only result in their product unfairly being shunned in the marketplace. Monsanto manufactures bovine growth hormone. In its eyes, its product is safe. It thus is compelled to defend the reputation of its product in the marketplace. If Monsanto also signs onto Business Roundtable and other high-minded pronouncements denouncing protectionism, that makes them hypocrites, perhaps. But it doesn't make them incorrect on economics. Economics is the study of maximizing national wealth and consumer welfare. Monsanto has a good argument that real consumer welfare is not promoted by a labelling scheme which confuses the public with junk science but drives production and logistics costs higher resulting in higher prices for dairy products which (according to the USDA) are in important part of a nutritious diet.

I reread the original article and now have to admit I have the analogy wrong as well. The analogy should be that the the anti-three stripes campaign is being conducted on the internet and that despite snopes disclaimers is spreading like wildfire (remember the P&G logo was the "mark of Satan"). Nike then promotes advertizing reminding consumers that its shoes do not have three stripes. Seems to me the proper avenue is not legislation, but a commercial slander case or at least lobbying effort to have a disclaimer added. Where I differ from Peter T is that the burden should be on those seeking to use questionable scientific claims in their marketing and that some recourse needs to be given to producers of products targetted by such marketing

Yes, res publica, Monsanto, as always, is merely looking out for the best interests of the people, not trying to protect its bottom line by denying people information so informed free market choices can be made. Selfless Monsanto!

If Monsanto wanted to do what you claim, then Monsanto should not try to block information for the customer, but instead provide its own information. And guess what, it does that all the time! It's just that Monsanto wants you to have its info, and only its info.

There is no scientific claim in the label; just info that people can use to make a choice. Just as "organic" doesn't tell you that a product has been made with quality ingredients or tastes good (it just tells you its organic), so too this label just tells you the hormone has not been used in this product.

From this:

"If you assume that Monsanto is right on the science...and the many government regulators who have looked at it" - res publica

One would presume that this label would helps sales:

OUR COWS GIVEN AN XTRA HEAVY DOSAGE OF HORMONES...YUMMMY!

With hormone related cancers skyrocketing, public skepticism of "studies" showing no effect is warranted.

...that and the fact that those studies do cover a long enough period of time, nor can factor in other hormone found in the food chain.

...oh one other point...woman who have had breast cancer [my friend being such a case], are told to avoid hormones by doctors orders. Monsanto if it gets it's way would impose a death sentence upon these woman.

...free market my ass

Should have said:

...that and the fact that those studies do NOT cover a long enough period of time, nor can THEY factor in other hormones found in the food chain.

Similar issues come up in the global trading system. Case in point: labeling ag products as GMO-free. In that case and this one, I fail to see how the markets can't sort the labeling issue out. Presumably, use of hormones means lower unit costs of production resulting in lower prices for hormone-using products. If a product is labeled as hormone-free, presumably it'll have a price premium as well. Consumers will choose based on preferences. I recall thinking the exact same thing when "GMO-free" labeling came up as an issue. Dean's exactly correct, it's protectionism. Simple as that.

One of the reasons for public outrage at the use of steroids by baseball players is that viewers were uninformed that they were consuming baseball that had been enhanced by the drugs, not because hormone-enhanced baseball is harmful to watch. Likewise, not everyone is worried that bovine hormones are a health risk for milk drinkers, but out of concern at a mode of production that they are not comfortable with and do not wish to support.