Skip to main content
Skip to main content

Hot on HuffPost Food:

See More Stories
Tell us what you think for a chance at $1000!


Ben & Jerry's wants hormone labeling on ice cream

ben & jerry's ice creamWe're a little hormonal today about ice cream, and it has nothing to do with downing a pint standing in front of the freezer during that time of the month (at least I don't think so).

We're talking about recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST. Just as a little brush-up for everyone including myself, rBST is a hormone that is meant to boost production in dairy cows. The hormone was not approved in Canada, Japan or the European Union, but for some reason, the FDA approved it in the US. Neat!

Ben & Jerry's was one of the first ice cream makers to label their ice creams as free of these rBST hormones. However, some states are now trying to BAN the labeling saying that it implies that hormone-free milk is safer than milk that comes from cows that have been injected with chemicals that aren't even approved in other countries.

Uh, oookay.

Now I'm not saying whether I believe hormone-free milk is safer or not, but I do think that it's kind of stupid to restrict information to the consumer. If Ben & Jerry want to tell people that there are no hormones in the milk they use to make their ice cream, they should be able to.

Source

Filed Under: Farming, Business, Health & Medical, Ingredients
Tags: dairy

Sponsored Links

Reader comments (Page 1 of 1)

Ricardo

2-11-2008 @10:26PM Ricardo said... It's not that Ben & Jerry's treats people better (in this case anyways), but that they treat their animals better. I agree with the intention of the state's ban, although I think it infringes on free speech.

BST (aka. bovine growth hormone) is banned in Canada and Europe because of the clear risk to cows including 25% increase in mammary gland inflammation (which is treated with antibiotics), 55% increase in lameness, and 40% decrease in fertility (CJVR 2003). Health Canada's ban stated that they didn't find a risk to humans. BST also causes an increase in IGF1 in the animal and the milk. Humans produce much more IGF1 naturally than could be consumed in milk, but high doses in animal studies led to a wide range of conditions.
Reply

Warzy

2-11-2008 @11:02PM Warzy said... I am seriously considering switching to organic milk because of the hormones. Someone told me that the traces of hormones in the milk over the years is part of the reason that girls are 'developing' at earlier ages... and I completely believe it - Because I could easily be living proof. (I drank milk all of the time.) I think of the people I know who don't like/drink milk... no 'overdevelopment' to speak of. It's interesting... I just wish organic milk wasn't twice the price of conventional.
Reply

Mike

2-11-2008 @11:18PM Mike said... Don't believe the urban legends about milk hormones enhancing your breasts. It just dilutes the value of any accurate comments you might make.
Reply

Sarah

2-12-2008 @10:25AM Sarah said... I love the tone of your article! Thanks for the info. I wonder if Haagen Daaz uses rBST milk in their ice cream. Is there a way to find out?
Reply

Michael Schmitt

2-12-2008 @10:54AM Michael Schmitt said... There are no scientific differences between milk produced from an rBST injected cow or one that is not injected. This issue is only about animal welfare and not about the milk itself. In 1994, the FDA issued guidance to the dairy industry that requires the statement "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST treated cows." As long as B&J puts that on their label somewhere, things should be just fine.
Reply

Adriane

2-12-2008 @10:17PM Adriane said... As MS stated above, there have been no studies that have proven without a doubt that rbst [vs hormone-free milk] has any differencial effect on humans.

However, wouldn't you rather drink milk/eat ice cream/etc from a cow that WASN'T pumped full of god knows what as oppoosed to one that was- no matter if you can see an "effect" on humans instantly? Yah. Me neither.
Reply

marmo

2-25-2008 @9:04AM marmo said... You guys can believe the FDA if you want, but I'm with Adriane. It's unnatural, and I don't want it in my food. I am a very careful label reader, it's my right to that information. Monsanto is EVIL. EVIL! It's not a question of free speech here, it's a question of consumers' rights.
Reply

7 Comments / 1 Pages

Most Popular Stories

  • FDA Still Struggling to Define

    FDA Still Struggling to Define "Gluten-Free"Read More

  • This Omelet Recipe Is Written On the Egg Itself

    This Omelet Recipe Is Written On the Egg ItselfRead More

  • Why Jewish Food Disappoints

    Why Jewish Food DisappointsRead More

Latest Flickr Feed


Sponsored Links