E-Actions for Freedom

Tell Monsanto to Stop Bullying Tiny Dairy Over Growth Hormones

As a libertarian, I believe that the power of the market is important when it comes to facilitating healthy and responsible trends in society. Part of that means that when companies make efforts to target a niche of customers that have specific concerns or motivations toward certain good or bad consumer trends, they should be allowed to. Monsanto appears to be attempting to use the force of government to interfere with a company's attempt to inform its customers about its practices -- trying to counteract the free market by leveraging money into political power through the courts and regulatory bodies. They should back off. The court that sees the case should throw it out anyway, but I'm not counting on that.

ActForChange : Act Now

Monsanto, Stop Bullying Tiny Dairy Over Growth Hormones

In a move of Goliath-attacking-David proportions, Monsanto, the multi-national agrichemical company, is suing a small, family-owned milk producer in Maine because they advertise that their farmers pledge not to use artificial growth hormones (also known as rBST) on the cows that produce their milk.
Oakhurst Dairy pays its suppliers a price premium not to use artificial growth hormones on their cows and they advertise this via a "Farmer's Pledge" emblem on their products. They do so in order to respond to consumer demand for dairy products produced by cows free of rBST. The dairy makes no health claim about the Farmer's Pledge, but Monsanto claims that even a factual assertion misleads consumers!

Although approved for use in the United States by the FDA, artificial growth hormones are already banned in the European Union and Canada, and Monsanto clearly fears that even informing consumers of their use will damage its sales. Monsanto's lawsuit demands that Oakhurst only be able to keep the Farmer's Pledge label if it adds information about FDA approval. Not surprisingly, Monsanto is not asking that the label include information about the European Union and Canadian bans.

Lawsuits such as these are shameless attempts to use the financial clout of a multi-billion-dollar monopolist to intimidate a tiny family-owned business. Consumers want the information being provided to them, and Monsanto should get out of the way.

Call to action

Urge Monsanto to leave the Oakhurst Dairy alone and immediately drop its lawsuit.

Urge DEA to approve Medical Marijuana study

Take Action Now!

Dear NORML Supporters:

You can really help NORML and the larger effort to make medical cannabis
available by taking part in this NORML Action Alert. One of the federal
government's favorite arguments against state medical cannabis laws and
initiatives is that the medical use of cannabis has not been approved by the
FDA and that more scientific research must be conducted. What they don't say
is that cannabis is treated differently than all other drugs.

Sadly, this is not a surprise to NORML's supporters.

The federal government, through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),
retains a monopoly on the supply of cannabis that can be used in
FDA-approved research and has twice refused to supply it to
privately-funded FDA-approved studies. Over two years ago the Medicinal
Plant Program at The University of Massachusetts/Amherst applied for a
license to produce cannabis for research purposes only to be confronted by a
series of dilatory tactics by the DEA.

Finally, in July this year the DEA officially announced the program's
application. A decision is expected shortly after the end of the public
comment period on September 22, 2003.

The DEA has indicated that it probably won't approve the application so we
have to act now to stop the cycle of keeping medical cannabis from sick and
dying patients.

Write Dr. Andrea Barthwell, Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, Office of
National Drug Control Policy, urging her to recommend that the DEA approve
the Umass/Amherst license:

Take Action Here

As a doctor and senior member of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
Barthwell holds authority over this issue. Through news articles she has
become a vocal part of the Drug Czar's campaign against medical cannabis.
Her most recent article explicitly says that "If a substance has the proven
capacity to serve a medical purpose, then it will be accepted." Yet, Dr.
Barthwell, along with the Drug Czar, continues to support the governmental
stranglehold on cannabis production hindering such research.

See Dr. Barthwell's article here

NIDA produces only low-potency material with stems included meaning that
patients have to inhale more smoke to get any of the beneficial effects,
decreasing the chance FDA will approve it. The Umass/Amherst team wants to
produce a small quantity of high-potency cannabis. As long as NIDA retains
its monopoly on the supply of cannabis that can be used in research, no
rational sponsor will invest money in the research required to get cannabis
approved as a medicine. Your help is needed to break the government's
monopoly on the supply of cannabis in order to unshackle medical cannabis
research.

Again please contact Dr. Andrea Barthwell, Deputy Director for Demand
Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy, urging her to recommend
that the DEA approve the Umass/Amherst license:

Take Action Here

Thanks in advance!

Regards,

R. Keith Stroup, Esq,
Executive Director
NORML