The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

the bovine growth hormone affair, part two 111which brandished it to sue anyone who dared to use the label “rBGH free.”The first victim, in 1994, was Swiss Valley Farms, a dairy cooperative in Davenport,Iowa, which informed its 2,500 members that it would not buy theirmilk if they used rBGH. “If things like that were repeated, it would cause irreparableharm to Monsanto,” company spokesman Tom McDermott said injustifying the suit. 4 The case ended in a settlement authorizing the cooperativeto label its milk, provided that it add the brief “contextual statement”highly “recommended” by the FDA guidance: “The FDA has found nosignificant difference between milk from cows treated with rBST and nontreatedcows.” “All dairy professionals are terrified,” a director of a cooperativein the Northeast said shortly afterward, demanding anonymity for fearof reprisals. 5In 2003, it was the turn of Oakhurst Dairy Inc., the largest dairy companyin northern New England, to find itself in court. This family business hadsharply increased sales ($85 million) by labeling its products with the statement:“Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones Used.” In return,it paid its producers a bonus. Monsanto sued on the grounds that thelabel constituted a “disparagement of the use of growth hormones in dairyherds.” “We don’t feel we need to remove that label,” declared Stanley T.Bennett, president of Oakhurst Dairy. “We ought to have the right to letpeople know what is and is not in our milk.” 6 Like its Davenport counterpart,the company, however, settled by adding the celebrated brief statement. 7In February 2005, Tillamook County Creamery Association, one of America’slargest cheese producers, was the target of Monsanto’s thunderbolts. Inthe face of growing demand from its customers to supply natural milk, thedairy cooperative had asked its 147 members to stop using the transgenichormone. Monsanto had immediately dispatched a lawyer from King andSpalding to Portland, Oregon, to persuade some of the members of theboard of directors to reconsider the decision. In a press release, the cooperativeexpressed surprise at these “intrusive tactics” aimed at “sowing dissension“ among its members. 8It was indeed hard to see why the company should have abstained fromsuch practices, since it could boast of always having received unfailing supportfrom the FDA. Evidence of this is provided by a letter from Dr. LeslieCrawford, deputy administrator of the agency, sent in 2003 to Brian Lowery—long in charge of rBST matters at Monsanto, and later director of the com-