It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bill to Block Milk Production Info from Consumers

page: 1/
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:05 PM

Bill to Block Milk Production Info from Consumers

A bill introduced in the Indiana House of Representatives by Bill Friend, a rep from tiny Macy, Indiana, would make his state the first to prevent consumers from knowing how their milk was produced.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:05 PM
Although, it may sound innocent, I can see how this would go horribly awry in the future.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:32 PM
I don't know why any one would want any bill like that. Aside from be launched into the next tax bracket.
But I really hope it does not get passed.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:33 PM
Is this even legal? They are putting so many harmful things into our food and drink today that they should have to tell us what is in there.

It is, as the the article states, not only a scientific consideration but should also be a moral consideration. I wonder if anyone voting on this Bill actually understands how most of these farms work.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:28 AM
Ridiculous and immoral. If they're going to tamper with my milk even more then pasteurization then I BETTER be allowed to know that when buying it.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:53 AM
Didnt I just hear last week something about they can gained approveal to produce milk from cloned cows? Odd that this bit of leglislation follows on the coat tails of that tibdit.

My Grandfather owned a Dairy. He delivered milk each morning in his small town door to door. I wonder what he would have thought about adding things to milk

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 11:39 AM
Some of the best tasting Milk I've ever had was from a friends farm who mainly raised cows. I rarely ever drink Milk cuz I can't stand the taste of it ever since then. I hope that bill dosen't get passed, I want to know how my stuff is produced... specially since I'm thinking of buying Organic Milk and switching over to local grown foods if I can afford it. (When I was pregnant I cut out a lot of the food I eat and ate a lot of local veggies, farm fresh eggs from my aunt, and fresh meat from the butcher... that was the only time I felt 100% healthy!(Even tho I had Gestanional Diabetes which changing my eating habits helped greatly... and did no no's like eating a signifacnt amount of Whoppers(was my main craving besides a lot of meat. LOL)

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:15 PM
The only reason for doing something as idiotic as this would be if you are trying to hide something or trying to hide something you are planning on doing.I want to know whats going in my triple grande' vanilla latte damn it!.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by Choronzon

Unfortunately, this is nothing new, and I do believe it's probably related to the new approval of using animal clones in our food supply. Monsanto actually sued farmers and lobbied the gonvernment successfully to pass laws, at first prohibiting labels that claimed BGH-free (Bovine Growth Hormone-free) milk, claiming that it unfairly implied that there was a problem with the milk that had BGH in it. You know, that was the stuff they recently found causing early puberty in very young children.

Monsanto also requires contracts from farmers who purchase their cloned seeds that they cannot use the resulting plants to grow any additional crops. I heard a news report on NPR that laws were even passed in Iraq that go so far as to force farmers who ever used the clone seeds to pay for all future crops, clones or not.

Here's a little story from back when Monsanto was trying to prevent consumers from learning which milk had BGH and which did not:

You can google for more. There are plenty.

While they're not the only major agri-business trying to make money as they control and pollute our food supply, they certainly are a big one. So, I guess I'm not surprised that here comes round 2, or maybe it's 3, or 4. The only way to stop this now, IMO, is to write your senators and congresspeople.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:03 PM
The best way to stop it is by boycotting these products, however it's hard to organize such a thing. Even senators will think twice before
fighting these mega-corporations.
Eventually we will consume callories,vitamins and minerals from a tube
of toothpaste.
, and even the rich ones will eat something like a Dish of the Day ("The Hitchhiker's Guide").

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:13 PM
If they want to hide things from us that are in Milk, then don't buy it.
Contrary to popular thought, milk doesn't do a body good anyway.

And if the Dairy Farmers want to complain, then we want to know what the hell is in the Milk that we arent supposed to know about...or you can go broke!

The solution is really simple. A good week or two of skipping the milk will change their perception on everything!

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:17 PM
There is a simple answer to this. NO MILK.

If you don't know how it is processed and its point of origin, then don't drink it.

NOT MILK website for those who may wonder if they should be consuming dairy products at all.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:18 PM
Pennsylvania recently passed a law that bars labeling milk as 'hormone-free'.
I smell the dairy lobbyists at work.
Face it, given the choice and the ability to pay, who would buy hormone-laden milk?
Implies other milk is unsafe, regulators say

Pennsylvania is stopping dairies from stamping milk containers with "hormone-free" labels in a precedent-setting decision being closely watched by the industry.

Synthetic hormones have been used to improve milk production in cows for more than a decade. The chemical has not been detected in milk, so there is no way to test for its use, but a growing number of retailers have been selling and promoting hormone-free products in response to consumer demand.

State Agriculture Secretary Dennis C. Wolff said advertising one brand of milk as free from artificial hormones implies that competitors' milk is not safe, and often comes with what he said is an unjustified higher price.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:31 PM
Once again corporate personhood rears its ugly head. What folks need to understand is that this is not just about putting labels on milk or other agricultural foods and products, it's about privacy, it's about secrecy. It's about agricultural corporations getting in the position to invoke the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is agricultural corporations want to get into the position where they are protected from illegal search and seizure.

It took years for the Ohio EPA to enforce its regulations on the factory egg farms of Buckeye Egg. Corporations can deny a regulatory body's access to their facility based on the 4th Amendment (protection against illegal search and seizure.) No more surprise inspections; now the EPA has to make an appointment!
Some Specific Examples of the Abuse of Corporate Personhood

From the OP:

In particular, Friend's bill would keep dairies from stating that their products were free from the Monsanto product Posilac, a recombinant bovine somatrophin or growth hormone. rBGH, as it sometimes known, is a controversial substance that is grown in E. coli cells, purified, and then injected into cows to increase milk production.

These statements alone goes a long way toward proving the veracity of my assertion, if not proving it altogether. Agricultural corporations want to do what they want to do without oversight from consumers or the government. They want to greatly reduce their accountability to consumers and government, by being in a position to make it difficult for consumers to know what it is that they consume, and for government to intervene preemptively on the consumer's behalf. For example, if no one but the corporation knows what goes into the milk it sells, then no one can sue for damages arising out of the use of that corporation's milk. Government would need reasonable cause to conduct a search and possibly seize evidence that could be used against the corporation in a court of law. If a sick consumer or the surviving relatives of consumer that died from the consumption of food and/ or use of other products that contain dangerous chemicals and hormones produced by an agricultural corporation does not have a label to point to, or local, federal, and state reports to point to in an effort to support claims against that agricultural corporation, then, how does the authorities acquire reasonable cause in order for a judge to issue a search warrant?

This is serious business folks, if you want corporations to remain transparent and accountable to consumers, the public, and the authorities. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights applies not only to human beings, it also applies to corporations. Both groups of persons are collectively known as individuals. Learn more about corporate personhood:

Some Specific Examples of the Abuse of Corporate Personhood
Corporate personhood debate

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:36 PM
I can't believe we live in a day and age where there is even an argument between having more or less information available about something.

no knowledge=bad
some knowledge=better
much knowledge=best

Nevermind, I do believe it.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by Areal51

This is serious business folks, if you want corporations to remain transparent and accountable to consumers, the public, and the authorities. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights applies not only to human beings, it also applies to corporations. Both groups of persons are collectively known as individuals. Learn more about corporate personhood

Thanks for that point Area51. Just a comment about corporate personhood...

One of the first things they teach you about corporations in business school is that they are legally persons under the law. They have rights as people, but they have an interesting legal reason for existence, which some (me) could argue is effectively their "soul". By law, the reason for a corporation's existence is to "increase the wealth of its shareholders".

I have often considered this, in some ways, a legally evil construct. All officers and board members of a corporation are legally bound to fulfill their fiduciary duty to do their best, within the course of their work, to enable the corporation to succeed in its reason for existence.

What this means is that if an officer or board member makes a decision to use any corporate resources to help an employee in need or provide exceptional value (in this case, adequate information) to a customer, without the justification that it will somehow "increase the wealth of its shareholders", they can technically be sued for breaking the law. Of course, corporations are run by people, and as we know, people can be good or bad, but in spite of that, I believe we have, by law, created virtual people in the form of corporations and endowed them with evil, inhuman souls.

I've thought before that this concept is deserving of a thread of its own, but who knows if I'd ever get around to it. Since you brought up the issue, I thought I'd add it here for now. Thanks.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by lifestudent]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Areal51
...corporate personhood...

I'm sorry, but I share a different view. The problem isn't "corporate personhood". In fact, if corporations were held to the same standards as individuals, we'd have much less of the nonsense we see now. (A discussion better left for another thread.)

This type of legislation is nothing more than another form of CORPORATE WELFARE thinly veiled as consumer protection.

Consumer demand hurt the competitiveness of RBGH-milk (for lack of a better term), and the government prostitutes spread their legs for big dairy.

What makes this effort particularly contemptuous is that it prevents accurate free-speech. While the science may still be out on the effects of RBGH-milk, I see nothing wrong with a milk producer indicating they produce RBGH free milk, as long as it's true.

The argument that it unfairly prejudices consumers by implying the alternative product is less sound is utter bull-crap and no different from "Made in America", "ALL Natural", "Hand Made", "Fresh", or "kosher" labels.

If a company wants to market a product to me, saying it was produced only on Sundays by three virgins, then I SAY LET THEM DO IT!!! (Because personally I think the ones made on Tuesday's suck!

As long as the label is true, why is that any of the government's business???

[edit on 29-1-2008 by loam]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:38 PM
this is just scary to me. When you take into account the general amount of chemicals added to the water supply, then you take into account some off the 14,000 man made chemicals already added to our food supply, now combine that with the 2006 approval of the FDA to spray our food with a virus cocktail, and NOW they do not want us to know what they are doing to the milk? Considering all we do know, can you really trust the Government when they want to keep something a secret?

My answer is simply no. Judging by what we do know to be fact about what is added to the water supply and the food supply, it is common sense to think that if they are trying to keep something a secret about what we ingest, the reason is because it shows the true intentions of our Government. I strongly suggest to buy Organic foods if you have the means to do so. It is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, however you will not eat as much and you would be shocked at how some things that you have learned to live with suddenly just disappear. I have even seen a serous case of Acne on an adult cleared up and cured after a few months of eating organic food. It is amazing what can happen to the body when you remove all the chemicals in your food supply.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by Choronzon

Why would they need to censor the milk ingredients? Perhaps there's some harmful chemicals (and addictive ones no doubt) that the company does not want consumers to hear about.

Last time I checked milk was milk. No preservatives needed...Its freaking MILK for Gods sake.

How can they possibly improve on it? Unless they want to thin it out to make a higher profit off less milk...Greedy assholes and corrupt politicians...Nice Indiana. Remind me not to buy milk in your state.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by loam

How it's supposed to work is that if it's the government's business, then it's the business of the public. Consumer's are a part of the public. The business of the government is first the business of the public, the human beings aka the people, when observed and practiced properly.

Fact is, "We the People" refers to corporations first and humans second. That is why what is known as the Bill of Rights exists as a list of amendments to the United States Constitution. There was a time when corporations were legally defined as property before they were considered persons. There was a time when some persons, human beings, were legally defined as property; they were commonly referred to as "slaves". Today any individual corporation is considered a person, legally as a juristic or fictitious person. Today any individual human being is legally referred to as a natural person. Thus the collective expressions of "individuals" and/or "individual rights" refers to both humans and corporations. Entirely respective of the United States, of course.

The fact that many labels feature false statements, a fact that you have pointed out, is directly due to the use of corporations exerting their First Amendment rights to free speech. See Kasky v. Nike. Any notion of corporations willingly engaging in the practicing of accurate free-speech in the pursuit of profit is nullified by many marketing and advertising campaigns that provoke profits for US corporations who find it easier and more profitable to sell fantasy at the expense of telling the truth. Those that do tell the truth seem to tell as little of it as possible. Never mind ad campaigns that aim at niche market points for accuracy.

"Simply the best." "We're number one." "Look and feel younger." And so forth. All advertising slogans that represent countless corporations that practicing free speech. All of them, and their products labeled as such, lying. How many number ones in a given field can there be when there can only be one number one? Doesn't matter -- the First Amendment protects all.

From the OP:

HB. 1300, which could be voted on any day, is couched as legislation to protect consumers from mislabeling. But it would prevent dairy labels that contain a "compositional or production-related claim that is supported solely by sworn statements, affidavits, or testimonials." In other words, anything related to the moral or ethical dimensions of the product would be off-limits.

In particular, Friend's bill would keep dairies from stating that their products were free from the Monsanto product Posilac, a recombinant bovine somatrophin or growth hormone. rBGH, as it sometimes known, is a controversial substance that is grown in E. coli cells, purified, and then injected into cows to increase milk production.

Why should a bill that is designed to help protect consumers against mislabeling also be a bill that would prohibit some dairies from stating what their products do not have? It should be perfectly fine for producers of natural foods to label their products as such. The producers of artificial and an artificially enhanced or genetically modified foods do so for the promise of increased profits, right? And so labeling their foods as containing such should not be a problem for them. What's obvious is that they want an INCREASED competitive advantage over producers of natural foods. They want consumers to not be able to tell the difference. Do cigarette manufacturers state the composition of cigarettes, i.e., arsenic, formaldehyde, etc.? No they do not. And for a long, long time the perception was that the only thing that cigarettes contained was tobacco. Indeed, the Surgeon General, who knew better, certainly had cause to label cigarettes with an ethical and moral statement, "Warning. Smoking cigarettes is dangerous to your health."

Anything that is not "natural" that is "artificial" should be detailed specifically on the labels of foods, in my opinion. As there is a legal distinction between natural persons and artificial persons, so there should be foods that are produced for human consumption. Consumers should have the right to know what is and is not in the food that they eat. There is nothing wrong with a company claiming "Does not contain...", if the truth is being told. At the same time nothing should be able to pass as "all natural" if it is not. Now, if rBGH products are being fed to corporations, well, then, I don't have a problem with that.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in