Speaker of the House B. Patrick Bauer  
Indiana House of  Representatives  
200 W. Washington  St.  
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Dear Speaker Bauer,  

We, the undersigned consumers, dairy  farmers, farm and agricultural organizations, public health, animal protection  and environmental groups, food processors and retailers are writing to urge  the Indiana General Assembly not to prohibit farmers from telling consumers  that they aren't using artificial hormones on their dairy cows. We urge  you not to prohibit labels such as "Our farmers' pledge:  no artificial  growth hormones," "From cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST," and  "free of artificial growth hormones." These labels are not misleading,  and would be made illegal if HB 1300 is passed.  Recently similar labeling rules have  been considered in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and have been dismissed due to  overwhelming consumer opposition.  

We urge you not to prohibit claims  about the non-use of hormones for the following reasons: 

·       Consumers have  right-to-know about the foods they eat.  Many consumers prefer to buy  milk produced by cows not treated with artificial hormones, as evidenced by  the success in stores across the country of such milk.  Consumers have a  basic right to choose about the characteristics of the food they  buy.

   ·       Any prohibition  would be a serious infringement on the free speech rights of farmers who want  to inform the public about their agricultural practices.  Some claim that  these labels can be misleading because they cannot be verified by a  test.  However, many label claims, including "locally grown" and "Indiana  Grown" cannot be verified by a laboratory test.  In addition, all  required country-of-origin labels cannot be verified with a test; rather, they  are verified by simple written statement/declaration.

In 1994, after the US Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) approved use of Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth  hormone (rbGH), the FDA also said that the following label statement, in  proper context, is acceptable:  "from cows not treated with rbST."   In 2007, Monsanto asked FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to declare  these labels to be misleading.  In late August, the FTC wrote to  Monsanto, "The FTC staff agrees with FDA that food companies may inform  consumers in advertising, as in labeling, that they do not use rBST."   Thus, Indiana HB 1300 contradicts long established federal policy on this  matter.

   ·       The use of rbGH  remains controversial and was not approved in Canada, Japan, and the European  Union because of negative effects of rbGH use on animal health.  Codex  Alimentarius, the United Nations main food safety body, twice decided that it  could not endorse the safety of rbGH for human health.    

We urge the Indiana General Assembly not to interfere with the rights of farmers, dairies and  consumers.  

Milk processors that have signed this  letter simply want to be able to respond with truthful labeling to these concerns expressed by consumers and their corresponding desire to buy  milk that is from cows not treated with rbGH.  

Consumers have a right to know what's in their food and how it's produced. Farmers and dairies have the right  to tell them.    

Yours,
Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association