Her letter to the Dairy-L listserv follows:
I absolutely agree that the marketing of non-rBST milk is a ruse. This milk is sold by deceiving consumers, who see slogans like "No antibiotics - no added hormones" and, naturally enough, conclude that there must be antibiotics and added hormones in regular milk.
So here's my question -- why can't regular milk labels carry the exact same claim? If we put "No antibiotics -- no added hormones" on regular milk labels, it would reassure consumers. It would alleviate some of the harm being done to the image of the dairy industry. And it would be perfectly true -- just exactly as true, no more, no less, as it is when non-rBST and organic milk marketers put it on their packages.
The tactic we've been trying to use -- fighting back by insisting that the claims made by non-rBST and organic milk marketers aren't true -- won't work. You can't prove a negative, and anyway, it's too late. Consumers don't have the information they need to understand the competing claims, they've been conditioned to think that the specialty marketers are more honest and believable than "big dairy," and they don't have time to worry about it, anyway. They just want to grab a container of milk out of the dairy case on the way home from work without having to worry about whether they're buying a safe food.
If every package of regular milk were prominently labeled "No antibiotics -- no added hormones," I think we'd recover some of the market we are otherwise, inevitably losing to the specialty milks. By not giving consumers this information, we are CONCEDING that regular milk is inferior to the specialty milks. We don't mean to -- but that's the effect.
If we can't beat them, why not join them? Can any marketing people on the list tell me why this information shouldn't be added, right now, to every label on every package of regular milk?
6 comments:
Don't label every package when you can discriminate based on price. Create a brand or sub-brand of antibiotic/hormone-free milk produced using a unique process that results in a significant reduction in the environmental impact of dairy production. Have charts on the package showing that non-rBST milk destroyed the wetlands, caused sprawl, killed Bambi's mother, and tipped the 2000 Presidental election. Charge more for the exact same milk to people who care about such things.
Unfortunately, James, the organic and non-rBST milk producers have already adopted exactly the strategy you propose, and there's nothing tongue-in-cheek about it. They charge more for the exact same milk by claiming pretty much everything you suggested about regular milk. ALL milk is antibiotic-free. NO milk contains any added hormones. The boutique producers sell the same product for more money by scaring people into thinking there's a difference, when there's not. As perhaps you can see, this ticks me off. ;-)
(...But wait, Big Dairy DIDN'T tip the 2000 Presidential election? Are you positive about that?!?)
My kinda talk, James.
I don't think labelling would change much, though, because people who buy rBST-free milk are making an irrational choice in the first place. Continuing the fight between unproven conjecture vs. same product at a lower price isn't going to work because people in that market segment are primed to find a cheaper good inferior, so they'll believe the conjecture. Unproven conjecture vs. proven environmental benefit seems like a much more winnable argument, but it's one that's not being made.
Mythos over logos, James. It's an argument that can't be won. Everybody "knows" we're ruining the environment with our lifestyle of excess, and you will never convince them that the best thing they can do for the environment is replace their older car with a new one, or that injecting cows with "hormones" is good for the environment. The population is exploding, there are chemicals everywhere, and it just isn't right. I have sat around our kitchen table with too many well-intentioned folks who just "think we've lost our way" to be at all optimistic about it. Who's side would you rather be on, Monsanto's or (trumpets, please) The National Resources Defense Council?
The article was well-balanced, surprisingly.
But, THE WORST THING about this whole mess is that affluent activists, who are unconcerned about what they have to pay for milk, if they even drink it or feed it to their kids, are causing cheap milk to be less available to people who can really use it.
Of course, I meant whose side wouod.ld you rather be on, not who's side would you rather be on.
God.
Post a Comment