Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Business Maverick

Business Maverick, South Africa

Vet vows to pursue claim after losing appeal over Woolworths milk

Vet vows to pursue claim after losing appeal over Woolworths milk
Georgina Crouth
By Georgina Crouth
15 Aug 2024
Facebook
19
Dairy veterinarian Dr Tod Collins argued that the retailer’s claims that its milk is rBST ‘hormone-free’ are misleading and ‘scare the public into avoiding non-Woolworths milk’.

The veterinarian who has lost his fight against Woolworths’ rBST “hormone-free” packaging claims before the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has vowed to pursue the matter because he says the restrictions are threatening food security and South Africa’s dairy industry.

Dr Tod Collins, who took the retailer to the ARB in May over its claims that Woolworths milk was free of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBST) — a synthetic version of the naturally occurring BST protein hormone that regulates milk production in cows — has now lost his appeal after objecting to the board’s rejection of his initial application. 

rBST is given to cows after they have given birth between days 57 and 70 of the lactation cycle, to extend the period of peak milk production.

rBST 'harmless'


It has been safely used by commercial dairy farmers since the early 1990s and confirmed as harmless in both meat and milk products by an exhaustive list of international bodies, including the American Cancer Society; American Council on Science and Health; American Dietetic Association; the Canadian Animal Health Institute; the European Union’s Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products; Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations; International Dairy Food Association and the US Dairy Export Council.

Many countries have confirmed rBST is safe and does not threaten the human food chain. But despite widespread acceptance, rBST remains controversial: While approved by the FDA in the US, it has been banned in numerous countries including the European Union, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand due to concerns about increased health risks in cows. 

Some consumers think rBST is a steroid hormone that is harmful to humans: it’s not a steroid, it’s a protein, digested like any other protein when consumed, acknowledges Pick n Pay in a policy document on rBST.

While the FDA maintains there is no significant difference between milk from rBST-treated and untreated cows, milk from rBST-free cows can be labelled as such, giving consumers a choice.

Boost production


The FDA says early research in the 1930s and 1940s in Russia and England found that injecting cattle with pituitary extracts, particularly bovine somatotropin (bST), could boost milk production. This led to attempts to alleviate food shortages during World War 2 using pituitary-derived bST. However, it wasn’t until the 1980s that biotechnology enabled large-scale, cost-effective production of bST, known as recombinant bST (rBST).

The FDA rigorously evaluates animal drugs before approving them for use in food-producing animals. This process includes ensuring the safety of the resulting food (milk and meat) for human consumption, confirming the drug’s harmlessness to animals and the environment, and verifying its effectiveness. 

Collins, an author, consultant and leading dairy veterinarian who has lectured at the Onderstepoort veterinary science department of the University of Pretoria, is based in Underberg, KwaZulu-Natal. He had taken Woolworths to the regulator over its packaging and advertising claims, which read: “When only rBST hormone-free will do: tested and audited, so you know what is in your milk.”

He told the board the use of the word “hormone” does not alert the public that there are safe protein hormones (such as rBST) and steroid hormones which could be dangerous. 

“This is blatant misleading of the consumer,” he said.

“Moreover, rBST does not enter the milk. Woolworths’ claims that it is ‘tested and audited’ cannot be substantiated.”

Furthermore, these claims imply that opposition milk contains rBST “hormones”.

“The entire advertisement hoax misleads and scares the public into panic-avoiding non-Woolworths milk.”

Clients concerned


Woolworths, represented by Adams & Adams, argued that while they do not hold a particular view on the health or nutritional aspects of milk derived from animals treated with rBST, or hold a particular view on the impact of rBST treatment on such animals, many clients were concerned about it. 

In 2001, in response to demand, Woolworths launched its audited “rBST-free” Ayrshire fresh milk range, to which customers responded positively. This, the lawyers argued, is no different to some customers preferring free-range chicken, eggs laid by uncaged hens, products which are MSG- or sugar-free, or fish caught using sustainable and responsible fishing techniques.

The Department of Agriculture introduced stricter regulations in 2014 for products claiming to be “rBST-free”, which included mandatory testing of milk products in addition to existing audits. As rBST testing was unavailable locally, Woolworths removed the claims from its packaging to maintain label accuracy but continued to sell milk without the additive.

By 2017, after obtaining the department’s approval for a new audit protocol, including rBST testing in the Netherlands, it reintroduced the “rBST-free” and “rBST-hormone-free” labels on the milk packaging. 

Strict testing


Woolworths now tests rigorously to ensure milk remains rBST-free.

It says its advertisements make no claim that “rBST-hormone-free” milk is safe, nor does it claim that milk produced using, and thus containing rBST, is harmful. 

“Our client’s advertisement simply informs the consumer that rBST is not found in, or used in the production of, our client’s milk.”

As such, the statement that its milk is “rBST-hormone-free” is factual, honest, informative and certainly not misleading, they argue. 

The ARB’s appeals committee has confirmed the earlier ruling, but Collins is not persuaded.

He now plans to pursue the matter through the Department of Agriculture.

Proven 'safe'


The Milk Producers Organisation says it doesn’t have an official position on rBST, except to say that it is proven to be safe, and has a positive effect on dairy farmers’ carbon footprint.

It does question Woolworths’ claim that customers want rBST-free milk. 

Spokesperson Fanie Ferreira said South African customers generally lack awareness about what goes into dairy products. 

“What is offered to the customer, and what they know, is worrying. A huge amount of yoghurt on the shelf is not yoghurt, it’s a dairy snack, and customers don’t know it… so I really don’t buy claims that Woolworths customers want rBST-free.” 

Ferreira said some processors have also started telling farmers they would prefer farmers not to use rBST, but “I don’t think farmers care – if it suits them and if it’s profitable for them to use it, they will”.

The Agriculture Department failed to respond by deadline. DM

Categories:

Tags: