Oakhurst, Monsanto gird for federal court battle

BANGOR – A trio of Monsanto representatives was in Bangor Thursday morning lobbying on behalf of the chemical giant’s federal lawsuit to force Oakhurst Dairy to change its milk jug labels, a federal court case that will come to trial in January.

The landmark lawsuit centers on whether – as new and controversial ingredients enter the food supply – a producer has the right to make truthful statements about what a product does not contain, right along with what it does contain.

Oakhurst’s label tells the truth. But Monsanto contends that, although truthful, the label is misleading and prompts consumer skepticism that undermines the company’s lucrative markets.

Monsanto sued Oakhurst on July 3, claiming that a label on Oakhurst milk jugs that states “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones” is hurting the multinational chemical company’s relationship with dairy farmers and misleads consumers into thinking that there is something wrong with milk produced with artificial hormones.

Monsanto is the only producer of Posilac, or recombinant bovine growth hormone, a drug injected into milk cows every two weeks to boost production. About one-third of the United States’ 9 million dairy cows are given the hormone.

Dr. Jennifer Garrett of Monsanto said Thursday that “healthy, comfortable cows are those producing more milk. Posilac helps cows make about 1 gallon more a day. It is a very natural process.”

Opponents, however, have concerns that the artificial hormones are harmful to cows, that they make cows produce milk that is chemically and nutritionally different from natural milk, and that they could induce higher rates of cancer in humans. Based on these concerns, Canada and the European Union have banned the hormone. The United States, Mexico and Brazil are the only countries where it is permitted.

Stanley Bennett II, president of Oakhurst, on Thursday reasserted his stand against changing the label. “We don’t feel we have any obligation, nor will we be required or bullied into somehow qualifying our standards,” he said.

“Our customers have told us in no uncertain terms that they don’t want artificial growth hormones in their milk. Our label is an accurate and honest attempt to communicate to consumers what we are trying to do. It is our obligation to our customers.”

This is the third such suit filed by Monsanto against dairy processors regarding labeling issues. The two other suits, one in Texas and the other in Chicago, were settled out of court.

Although the details of those settlements are confidential, Brian Robert Lowrey, director of industry affairs for Monsanto, said that both dairies changed their labels after the settlement.

Many opponents of artificial growth hormones have labeled the Oakhurst lawsuit a “David versus Goliath” battle (Monsanto had $4 billion in sales last year, compared to Oakhurst’s $85 million), one in which Monsanto hopes to obtain a victory that would provide a precedent to fight similar labels across the country.

Not so, the Monsanto representatives maintained. “When Oakhurst began expanding their market into the Boston area, and only after a great deal of consideration, we felt we had to take action,” said Janice M. Armstrong, Monsanto’s director of public affairs.

Several other milk producers in New England – including Hood and Garelik – have similar labels but are not being sued. When asked if those companies also would be sued, Armstrong said she could not predict future litigation.

Since the suit was filed, Bennett said, his company has been inundated with letters, e-mails and other gestures of support, and has had an increase in sales. Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate for president in the last election, contacted Oakhurst in August to offer free legal help through his foundation, which supports freedom of speech.