NOTE:  The opinion expressed in this editorial is not necessarily that of Heart of America DHIA

The BST Ripoff

At various meetings this winter, dairy producers have asked me what I thought of processors forcing producers to stop using BST.

Never one to be shy of an opinion, especially when asked, I’ve been blunt: The move to BST-free dairy cases is a ripoff of both producers and consumers.

Even though Dairy Today has carried BST ads over the years, I really don’t care if producers use BST or not. Whether you use it or not should be up to you.
BST has been a safe, legal, fully-labeled production-enhancing tool for the past 14 years. As the label says, milk from cows treated with BST is not significantly different from milk from untreated cows.

If the vast majority of consumers don’t want BST-produced milk, you’d think after 14 years they’d let us know.

The ripoff comes when processors tell producers they can’t use it, and then give them token compensation to make up for production losses. Here in little Monticello, MN (population 10,000), big box grocery chains are charging anywhere from 80¢ to $1.40/gallon more for BST-free milk.

That translates into an additional $9 to $16/cwt in increased gross revenues. Even if dairy producers and their co-ops are getting $1/cwt premiums, that still leaves $8 to $15 for the processors and retailers to pocket.

In my vocabulary, that’s the definition of a ripoff.

If this move to BST-free would be enhancing milk sales because of consumer fears, one could understand why it would be necessary. But it’s not.

“We are not seeing enhanced fluid milk sales,” says Alan Pierson, Land O’Lakes Vice President of Dairy Foods—Industrial Division. BST-free milk, he says, is simply a way to extract additional money from fluid sales.

Here’s the goofy part: Fluid sales were actually climbing over the past few years, thanks in part to better packaging and sales through fast food giants like McDonalds and Wendy’s. That all stopped abruptly in 2007.

Processors blame Class I prices in the plus $20 range as the reason for the decline. But if you add another $1.40/gal on top of that for BST-free, is it any wonder consumption stagnates?

At least here in the Midwest, consumers still have options. In some parts of the country, it’s BST-free or nothing. Now that’s consumer choice, isn’t it?


Scaring consumers, and then charging them 45% more to offer “tech-free” food, is one heck of a way to run a supermarket. It should surprise no one why they’re buying less.


But that’s just my opinion.

--Jim Dickrell is the editor of Dairy Today. You can reach him at jdickrell@farmjournal.com.