This gem comes courtesy of DairyReporter.com.
It got my attention, for sure.
Recall that Got Milk! ads are funded by a USDA-sponsored research and promotion (a.k.a “checkoff”) program, this one, appropriately, for fluid milk.
Will this ad help reverse the long-term trend in declining milk sales let alone consumption?
Um. Why don’t I think so.
Last week, I wrote about the dairy industry’s petition to avoid having to follow FDA rules about labeling artificial sweeteners on the front of milk cartons.
Cara Wilking, Senior Staff Attorney at the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University points out that the Sugar Association, the trade association for producers of cane and beet sugar, is right on top of this issue.
To assist consumers in making informed choices about what is sweetening the products they purchase, the Sugar Association petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting changes to labeling regulations on sugar and alternative sweeteners.
In this petition we asked that artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols be identified on the front of the package along with the amounts, similar to what is required in Canada.
If it is important to you to know if the product you purchase contains artificial sweeteners, let your congressional representatives know that FDA needs to take action on this important consumer issue.
The Sugar Association, obviously, represents the producers of cane and beet sugar. It wants to sell more sugar. It doesn’t like artificial sweeteners much. [Recall: it doesn’t like me much either—go to Media and scroll down to the bottom to read the Sugar Association’s letter threatening to sue me].
In contrast, the dairy industry wants to sell more milk. Sweetened milk, no matter with what, sells to kids. School kids are a big market for the dairy industry. This market, however, is not doing well these days, according to the dairy industry’s August 2012 School Channel Survey.
Schools and processors are realizing 59% of current potential…Milk potential stands at 6.29 milks per student each week…Actual usage is 3.74 milks per student each week. Elementary schools: 70% of potential being realized, down 1 point Secondary schools: 50%, down 1 point over last year.
Achieving ‘a milk with every meal’ translates into nearly 300 million incremental gallons….
Of course artificial sweeteners should be prominently labeled. The Sugar Association has this one right.
Whatever your opinion, you can file comments at www.regulations.gov. Search for docket number FDA-2009-P-0147.
The FDA is collecting opinions on a dairy industry petition to change the standard of identity for milk. The dairy industry wants to be able to add artificial sweeteners to chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk without saying so on the front panel of the package.
Why is the dairy industry doing this? Because it believes that:
Labels such as “reduced calorie” or “no added sugar” are a turn-off to kids who might otherwise reach for flavored milk with non-nutritive (artificial) sweeteners at the school cafeteria or from the grocery store cooler.
As if kids should be reaching for milk with artificial sweeteners.
The FDA wants to hear from YOU about this. It wants your comments on these questions (my translation):
Go to www.regulations.gov. Search for docket number FDA-2009-P-0147.
I was surprised to read a report in FoodNavigator.com that a private company is about to conduct an enormous—and undoubtedly very expensive—study of the nutritional status of children in Southeast Asia.
The study will collect data from more than 16,000 children aged 12 and under in four countries:
The company is doing this in partnership with institutions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Why would a private company embark on a project like this? The company is FrieslandCampina, a Dutch firm specializing in dairy products:
We provide people around the world with all the good things milk has to offer, with products that play an important role in people’s nutrition and well-being.
Our product range: baby and infant food, milk-based drinks, cheese, milk, yoghurts, desserts, butter, cream, milk powder, dairy-based ingredients and fruit-based drinks.
As the company explains, “We aspire to help people move forward in life with our dairy nutrition, and are committed to helping our consumers maintain and improve their nutritional well-being with the goodness of milk.”
I’m willing to predict that these studies will show that kids in Southeast Asia would be a lot healthier if they drank more milk. And will find reasons to dismiss concerns that lactose intolerance is the norm in Asian populations over the age of five or so.
FoodQualityNews reports that the British Food Standards Agency (FSA) is all upset about ice cream made from breast milk.
Eeks. It might violate food safety standards!
The Baby Gaga breastmilk ice cream is sold by a London firm called The Icecreamists. The company has been forced to withdraw Baby Gaga in response to complaints that it might not be safe for human consumption.
The milk comes from 15 moms. It is screened prior to sale, in part because breast milk can pass on things like hepatitis.
But nowhere in this account does it say whether the milk was pasteurized or how the ice cream tastes. I want to know!
I’m catching up on reading and just ran across a report about the accomplishments of the dairy checkoff. This, you will no doubt recall, is the USDA-sponsored program that collects a “tax” from dairy producers and uses the funds for generic promotion of dairy products. What fills the folks running the checkoff with pride? Among them,
As the person who sent this to me put it, you can’t make this stuff up.
The Center for Food Safety reports that a Federal Appeals Court has overturned an Ohio state ban on label statements such as “rbGH Free,” “rbST Free” and “artificial hormone free” on milk from cows that have not been treated with genetically modified bovine growth hormone (a.k.a. bovine somatotropin, or rbST).
In ruling on the case, IDFA et al v. Boggs, the court said:
The district court held that the composition claims were inherently misleading because “they imply a compositional difference between those products that are produced with rb[ST] and those that are not,” in contravention of the FDA’s finding that there is no measurable compositional difference between the two.
This conclusion is belied by the record, however, which shows that, contrary to the district court’s assertion, a compositional difference does exist between milk from untreated cows and conventional milk (“conventional milk,” as used throughout this opinion, refers to milk from cows treated with rbST). As detailed by the amici parties seeking to strike down the Rule, the use of rbST in milk production has been shown to elevate the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally-occurring hormone that in high levels is linked to several types of cancers, among other things. The amici also point to certain studies indicating that rbST use induces an unnatural period of milk production during a cow’s “negative energy phase.” According to these studies, milk produced during this stage is considered to be low quality due to its increased fat content and its decreased level of proteins.
The amici further note that milk from treated cows contains higher somatic cell counts, which makes the milk turn sour more quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality. This evidence precludes us from agreeing with the district court’s conclusion that there is no compositional difference between the two types of milk.
The court also said:
Like composition claims, production claims such as “this milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST” are potentially misleading because they imply that conventional milk is inferior or unsafe in some way. But neither the FDA nor any study has conclusively shown that to be the case.
Want to bet that this one goes to the Supreme Court?
Thanks to Marlene Schwartz of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale for alerting me to this Associated Press report about the new dairy industry campaign to rescue chocolate milk from the food police. This, you will not be surprised to hear, is the latest activity funded by the milk checkoff program, a USDA-administered program that requires certain commodity producers to contribute funds to a kitty to be used for generic marketing. One such program is MilkPep, the incredibly well funded marketing group that together with the Dairy Council invented the “Got Milk” mustache campaign.
MilkPep is now the proud defender of chocolate milk against efforts to get it out of schools. Why would anyone be so mean as to want to do that? Maybe because chocolate milk has more sugar and calories than plain milk? No matter. MilkPet is stepping up to the plate. Its $500,000 to $1,000,000 “raise your hand for chocolate milk” campaign takes on those pesky nutrition advocates who think that kids ought to be eating something other than sweets in schools.
The rationale for the campaign? If you get rid of chocolate milk, kids won’t drink milk. You will deprive kids of the nutrients in milk and contribute to the “milk deficit.” After all, this rationale goes, chocolate milk is better than soda (Oops. Didn’t we just hear something like this relative to the Smart Choices fiasco?).
OK. Let’s look at what this is really about:
MilkPep has produced a slide show to help companies take action (I apologize for not linking to it but I have not yet succeeded in uploading a large file, despite many attempts). The slides advise allies to go on a “chocolate milk offensive”:
Doesn’t this sound like something ripe for satire? Colbert! We need you!
Additions: Do not miss the YouTube version. And here’s theofficial MilkPep press release. Note the testimonials to the benefits of chocolate milk. It’s a health food!
