Increasingly, consumers want to know what's in the food they consume. Many people are trying to eat a healthier diet, and to some that means more natural foods, with less processing and fewer chemicals added.

Given that growing trend, Pennsylvania will be taking a step in the opposite direction when it implements a planned ban on milk carton labels claiming that no synthetic hormones were given to the cows that produced the milk.

Starting Jan. 1, according to a recent announcement from the state Department of Agriculture, milk containers sold in the commonwealth can no longer include labels that say that no artificial growth hormone, known as rBST, was given to the cows that produced the milk.

The problem, according to Agriculture officials, is that tests run on milk cannot verify that no-artificial-hormones claim, because milk contains naturally occurring hormones and the rBST-related hormones cannot be separately detected.

Some dairy farmers inject their cows with rBST to increase milk production. But many consumers are concerned about drinking that milk or giving it to their children.

The growth hormone for cows has been approved for use in the U.S. since 1994, but it is banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia and Japan, mostly over concerns that it could harm the herd.

Supporters of the ban argue that there is no scientific evidence that rBST is harmful to people.

The inability to test milk for rBST raises a legitimate issue, but politics and money might be the larger forces behind the label-banning move. Major dairy operations that do use rBST were no doubt pushing for the disturbing label ban. It's also likely that chemical giant St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., which manufactures and sells rBST, also was behind the effort to ban labels differentiating milk that is from cows given artificial growth hormones.

A Monsanto spokesman said the labels give the consumers the impression that "there's a health-and-safety difference between these two milks... and that's not the case."

That might be Monsanto's view, but many consumers still would prefer to make their own, informed decisions and pay the small price premium for milk from cows not injected with synthetic hormones.

Regardless of Monsanto's position and the challenge of enforcing or verifying such claims, consumers deserve to know as much as possible about what is in—or not in—the food they consume.

The state Agriculture Department's decision has alarmed consumer groups and has divided the dairy industry. Some milk producers support the "no-rBST"label ban, while large producers complain that since Pennsylvania is the only state banning such labels, they will incur added expenses producing labels for milk sold in the state.

The Pennsylvania Association of Milk Dealers opposes the ban and wants the label option to remain. "Our consumers are demanding it" is the simple explanation from Earl Fink, executive director of the group.

He is right. Consumers should have the right to know as much as possible about how their milk is produced. Pennsylvania's planned label change seems to run counter to consumers' interests in favor of corporate interests.

Rather than ban the labels, Pennsylvania officials should instead work on developing a system of more stringent testing or spot audits of dairies to ensure the honesty of those making the no-rBST claim. Then let the consumers decide. More information is better than less when it comes to food labels.