The lawsuit, brought the Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association, argued that the Ohio rule which "prohibits composition claims such as 'antibiotic-free' and 'pesticide-free,' violated their free speech rights and impeded interstate commerce." These groups "also challenged the rule's requirement that any dairy processor advertising that 'this milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST' must place a disclaimer next to the claim saying that 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." They contested the rule's requirements about the placement and typeface of this disclaimer.
The court ruled that the state's ban on composition claims was "more extensive than necessary to serve the state's interest in preventing consumer deception" and "does not impede interstate commerce." The court also concluded that the disclaimer requirement was "reasonably related" to the state's interest in preventing consumer deception and that the "typeface requirements put no undue burden on processors." The court, however, ruled in addition that the prohibition of an asterisk with the disclaimer "lacks and rational basis."
The "case was sent back to U.S. District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court decision."
To read the Businessweek story, click here.
Posted: 10/05/2010
