Tri-State Neighbor: South Dakota Farm Newspaper

Greg Jans, a dairy producer from Grove City, Minn., took the podium at the recent Midwest Dairy Expo to talk about a new organization.

Jans talked to several hundred dairy farmers Dec. 4 about American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT).

“It is our intent to raise our voice on behalf of producers to protect our interests and the interests of consumers,” Jans said. “We support the choice of producers to use technologies.”

AFACT was formed because producers are finding fewer markets that will take milk from cows given recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rbST.

In an article from the San Francisco Chronicle dated March 25, 2007, the CEO of California Dairies Inc., Richard Cotta, was quoted. Cotta said the nation's second largest dairy cooperative asked its members not to use rbST.

If the hormone was given to cows, the milk would have to be segregated and farmers would have to pay a surcharge.

Similar actions are occurring throughout the United States.

The Upper Midwest is one region of the United States that still uses rbST.

“The producers in those areas have tried to fight it, but they didn't know how to fight it,” Jans said.

AFACT has now taken on the challenge.

According to the Web site rbST Facts, rbST is also known as bST, bGH, rbGH, recombinant bovine growth hormone and Posilac.

“The clinical name for the naturally occurring protein hormone produced in the pituitary glands of all cattle is ‘bovine somatotropin,'” according to www.rbstfacts.org. “Human beings have learned how to reproduce an exact copy of this substance by means of recombinant DNA technologies.”

The name “Posilac” was trademarked by Monsanto Inc. Monsanto is the only company approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to manufacture and sell rbST in the United States.

rbSTFacts.org was developed as a collaborative project by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) and the Washington Dairy Products Commission (WDPC), a Washington state agency.

Jans became involved in AFACT in early fall 2007.

As vice president of the Minnesota Milk Producers Association, Jans was contacted by producers worried about the potential loss of rbST technology.

With support from industry, a small group of dairy leader farmers met in Chicago to create AFACT. Several producer organizations have endorsed the organization, including the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association, Minnesota Milk Producers Association and the Kansas Dairy Association.

“We thought, as producers, this would probably be more effective if it actually came from a producer-led effort, and not industry-led,” Jans said. “We don't want to just focus on rbST. There is more to it than that.”

Organizers worry that if rbST is not available, other approved technologies could also be lost.

They fear that if rbST is taken away, various organizations will take away producer animal housing and handling rights, use of antibiotics, synchronization technologies, feed additives and GMO crops.

Jans hopes other farmer organizations and individuals will join in supporting AFACT.

“We are promoting a product that is safe and a good technology to help the dairy farmer,” Jans said. “rbST has been proven safe, and it's been available for 14 years. There's never been a safety issue with it. There's no difference in the milk.”

AFACT members are gearing their educational campaign to consumers, processors, retailers and producers.

“AFACT is doing a lot of letter writing, e-mailing and trying to work with processors, trying to get the facts to them. We want to tell them, ‘Don't be so quick to say you're going to provide rbST-free milk,'” Jans said. “In the Midwest, we have the benefit that as producers we haven't been asked not to produce it anymore. We're one of the few parts of the U.S. that still has the availability of rbST.”

AFACT is setting up a Web site to provide more information on the new organization.

Comments »

Amanda wrote on Sep 9, 2008 4:30 PM:

" It is not necessary to boycott Monsanto, as the product was recently sold to ELANCO.
Also, you need to understand that while Posilac may have issues with mastitis, it does not increase IGF-1 in the milk (even if it did it would be broken down like other proteins in your stomach). The milk is the same as milk from cows now treated with Posilac, to the point that there is no actual way to test milk to see if cows have been treated. "

Francine Parker wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:09 PM:

" As a mother, grandmother and consumer I definately will not be purchasing milk unless I know it is without Posilac. If enough consumers boycott Monsanto as well as Kellogs and the other companies that use genetically altered foods perhaps the industry will wake up and stop poisoning us. "

walter wrote on Feb 5, 2008 11:18 PM:

" Posilac is BANNED in the rest of the civilized world, and for good reasons...mastitis requiring heavy antibiotic useage, and IGF-1 appearing in milk. And no need for more milk in a saturated market.

Where are you free-marketeers when it comes to this issue? If there is less, or no consumer demand, then don't use this product. If you do continue to use this product, then, as a consumer, I want to know. Freedom of choice works both ways! "

Comment on this story

Comments will be approved within 48 hours