(plaintiffs (dairy processing trade associations) challenged state (Ohio) administrative regulation that governs how consumers are informed about whether milk is produced from cows that were given a synthetic hormone (recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST); law prohibited claims that milk is "antibiotic free" or "pesticide free" and plaintiffs claimed the statute violated their First Amendment rights and violated the Commerce Clause; court agreed that statute violated First Amendment but not Commerce Clause; law's also required that any dairy processor advertising that "this milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST" must place a disclaimer next to that claim saying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has found no significant difference between milk coming from cows treated with rbST and those that are not; plaintiffs argued that other states allow an asterisk to be used after the claim linking to the disclaimer, which can be placed elsewhere on the label; court concluded that requiring a disclaimer is "reasonably related to the state's interest in preventing consumers from being deceived by production claims" and that specific typeface requirements put no undue burden on processors, but prohibition on the use of an asterisk "lacks a rational basis"; case remanded).
CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.