Top rBGH & rBST-free milk producers

November 13, 2007

Here’s your chance to support dairies who have taken a stand against the use bovine growth hormone.

Number: Rank by total dairy sales (2006)
P: Partially rBGH-free
C: Completely rBGH-free

1. Dean Foods ( P)
5. Kroger (C)
6. Dairy Farmers of America (P)
7. HP Hood (P)
11. Darigold (P)
12. Prairie Farms Dairy (C)
14. National Dairy Holdings (P)
16. California Dairies, Inc. (C)
18. Safeway Dairy Group (P)
30. Publix Super Markets (C)
42. Tillamook County Creamery Assoc. (P)
43. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. (C)
53. Stonyfield Farm, Inc. (C)
58. Michigan Milk Producers Assoc. (C)
59. Wilcox Farms (C)
72. BelGioioso Cheese Inc. (C)
73. Cloverland/Green Spring Dairy (C)
74. Smith Dairy Products (P)
85. Oakhurst Dairy (C)
88. Wawa Dairy (C)
92. Joseph Gallo Farms (C)
97. Oberweis Dairy Inc. (C)

Most of the processors listed above have gone rBGH-free in the past two years

Many other smaller processors have gone completely rBGH-free, which will put sales pressure on larger ones to do so. For instance, in Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Dairies, Rosenbergers and Turner have all gone rBGH-free. They were a major factor in Wawa’s decision to go rBGH-freeas of 10/1/07.

DFA, the nation’s largest co-op, sent a letter to its producers in the Mid-East region (Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Western Pennsylvania) stating that as of 1/1/08 all fluid milk must be rBGH-free.

Organic & rBGH-Free

These milk and dairy companies carry some or all organic products.

* Indicates a family farm


Alta Dena Organics (Cheese)

City of Industry, CA, 800-535-1369.

Morningland Dairy Cheese*

Mountain View, MO, 417-469-3817, available by mail order.

Organic Valley* (Milk, Cheese, Butter, Cream Cheese, Cottage Cheese, Sour Cream, Cream, Powdered Milk)

La Farge, WI, 608-625-2600,

Stonyfield Farms (organic line) (Yogurt and Ice Cream)

Londonderry, NH, 603-437-4040

Wisconsin Organics* (Milk, Cheese, Butter)

Bonduel, WI, 715-758-2280.


10 Responses to “Top rBGH & rBST-free milk producers”

  1. Julie Ryan Says:

    Thank you so much for posting this list. I have a 13 month old daughter who is very sensitive to rBST. Until we figured out what was causing her issues she endured months of painful gas and eczema. She is breastfed only and it was actually making it all the way to her through me. The only way we figured this out was by spending a week in Jamaica where her symptoms immediately disappeared. Another one of my friends daughter actually had breasts appear when she was 2 months old. When she finally started giving her only organic milk the breasts went away. It’s just so wrong and disturbing that the FDA is doing this to our children.

  2. Sherry Bunting Says:

    The amount of misinformation in the previous post is unbelievable. breasts on a 2-month old because of rbST? Are you crazy? Every naturally occurring food you eat has hormones in it. All milk has hormones in it. bst also called bgh(bovine somatotropin or bovine growth hormone) is a protein hormone. Our bodies recognize the substance as a metabolizeable protein, not a hormone. It does not, can not, will not affect humans as a hormone, only the bovines (cows) because it is their own naturally growth hormone. Dairy farmers who use the rbST product are simply giving the cow a man-made supplement to boost the lactation, meaning more milk from less cows, using less land, less feed, less manure, less of earth’s resources as we humans flood the planet with populuation, leaving less land to produce more food for more hungry mouths. I could go on. But that’s enough.

  3. Sherry, while you are correct that our bodies probably (the FDA and NIH have not tested this theory) don’t process rBGH as a hormone, but you neglect to mention IGF-1 which the body does not process as a protein, but as a hormone. IGF-1 levels can be anywhere from 2-10 times as concentrated in rBGH treated cow’s milk. There is a lot of advanced biochemistry working here that we don’t fully understand. Would you support rHGH (human growth hormone) use in breastfeeding women as a way to increase their milk supply, in theory, breastfeeding women could consume less calories “less resources” and still meet breast milk quantity quotas. Doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me. If we wouldn’t do it with people, then we shouldn’t do it with products people consume.

  4. Mike K Says:

    I agree that Julie’s conclusions are rediculous and complete conjecture. The statements made are ignorant to science. The FDA has concluded that milk from cows treated with rBGH or rHGH is indistinguishable from that of untreated cows. Furthermore, rBGH would be not act on transcription in a human cell if it somehow survived the heat of the pastuerization process and the digestion in the stomach. Both rBGH and rHGH would be rendered non-functional from heat denaturation and enzymatic cleavage. Sherry is absolutely right in saying that more milk production by hormonal stimulation does reduce the ecological foot print dairy cows leave on the earth. It reduces the greenhouse gas methane, and allows less usage of pestisides and herbicides that pollute our waters. Companies vowing to not use hormones or GMOs are just leading us to more chemical pollution.
    IGF-1 by the way was shown to be 1.5-5 times more concentrated (not 2-20) in rHGH treated cows, but it is non-functional.
    And to Clarissa, of course we shouldn’t do the same thing to people as we do animals. Your statement on giving humans rHGH for increased milk production is irrelevant to this conversation. You’re comparing drinking milk that has been proven to be absent of rHGH to injecting yourself with rGHG. Theres a big difference.

  5. Editor Says:

    There simply is no way to defend the use of this powerful, dangerous hormone. rBGH (rBST) is banned in Canada,the European Union, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. The risks to cows and humans are indisputable. For a brief overview go to:

    Greed is the driving force here, injecting rBGH into cows produces more milk. But at what cost?

    There is a simple solution. Buy organic milk, milk clearly labeled RBGH free, or better yet, drink less milk.

  6. Deidre' Says:

    Mike, I don’t believe that Julie’s conclusions are as rediculous and conjured as your thinking that the FDA finding are based on accurate and unbiased studies. We all know that the FDA is in the pocket of big business and can be bought with the almighty dollar! Anything that is unnatural that is added to our food supply or food sources has the potential to cause harm and risk to human life and health. It is time that America wakes up and realizes what lies are being perputuated upon us at the cost of our lives and well being to turn a profit and line the pockets of big business and government.

  7. […] Watch the following videos to learn more. Then look for milk clearly labelled “No rBGH, No rBST.” See also: Top rBST & rBGH free milk producers. […]

  8. mark Says:

    The European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia have all banned the use of Rbgh. An arm of the U.N. has refused to approve the drug three separate times.
    What really is amazing here is the fact that the FDA has approved this drug at all; it is not needed nor is it proffered by the American people.
    The effect on the cattle is that it does harm the animal’s biology with a 25% increase in udder infection.
    * rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 veterinary health risks on its Posilac label including mastitis and udder inflammation.
    * rBGH milk is contaminated by pus from mastitis induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
    * rBGH milk is contaminated by the GE hormone which can be absorbed through the gut and induce immunological effects.
    * rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally very different from natural milk.
    * rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), excess levels of which have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.
    * rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms. Thus, rBGH enriches Monsanto while posing risks but no benefits to the entire U.S. population.
    The Leading Edge Research On-Line Data has more researched documents on Genetically Engineered Products and Hormones on Animals for Human Consumption

    “1998 Canadian Gaps Report stated that, in fact, a larger proportion of the rBGH-fed rats, between twenty and thirty percent, did show clearly defined changes in the immune system. Some of the male rats even showed the development of cysts of the thyroid and incursion of the prostate (Teitel, Wilson, par. 48).”

    Our American government has sold out, it is contolled by the corporation’s which exibate a permeating greed. Our declared representatives no longer speak for the people and thereby put all America in harms way.

    (OTTAWA) Inadequate testing, regulation and public control of genetically engineered (GE) foods and similar products is putting the interests of the multi-billion-dollar biotechnology industry ahead of public health and environmental safety, says the Council of Canadians.
    In a nutshell!

  9. annierichardson Says:

    Hi Mark,

    Thanks for the good info and links. Annie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: