Monstersanto has long tried to block dairies from correctly and truthfully labeling their products as rBST. The government’s argument for banning labeling of GMOs and even the labeling against GMOs is that it could “give consumers the idea that something is wrong with the GMOs”. Yes, well, like duh.
In Vermont and several other states the consumers and farmers won against Monstersanto and their ilk. In some states the monsters have one, banning the consumer from knowing what they’re consuming.
A recent court ruling is a win for consumer choice, notification and the right to label our products as free of GMOs as well as other informative compositional claims on labels:
IDFA Successfully Defends Dairy Processors’ Right to Label in Ohio
Contact: Marti Pupillo
mpupillo@idfa.org
(202) 220-3535(Washington, D.C. - October 1, 2010) More than two years after the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against the state of Ohio to protect its members’ right to label, an appellate court ruling released yesterday provided a victory for dairy processors and consumers. In a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court decision that would have allowed the state of Ohio to ban the use of compositional claims on dairy product labels and dictate the placement of disclaimer statements.
“We’re pleased with the decision and feel that the court upheld our position that IDFA members have the constitutional right to make truthful and not misleading claims on their product labels,” said Clay Hough, IDFA senior group vice president.
Specifically, the Appeals Court found that the rule’s absolute ban on compositional claims, such as “rbST Free,” and the prohibition against using an asterisk to connect any claim to any disclaimer violated processors’ First Amendment rights. Dairy processors and retailers, responding to growing consumer interest, are providing dairy products made with milk from cows that have not been treated with artificial hormones, such as recombinant bovine somatotropin or rbST. As a result of the ruling, processors may continue to label these products with accurate compositional claims, providing consumers with the products they want and the information they need to make informed decisions.
The Appeals Court also concluded that the state’s ban is more extensive than necessary and that prohibiting the use of an asterisk to link to a disclaimer statement “lacks a rational basis.” The judges did agree, however, that Ohio could require the use of a disclaimer and the font, style and color to be the same as the claim.
IDFA originally filed the lawsuit on June 30, 2008, and filed its appeal in conjunction with the Organic Trade Association.
-IDFA.org
Let’s keep truth in labeling. If it has GMOs, anti-biotic treatments, hormones, etc in it then it should be labeled that it contains these things. Similarly if it does not contain these nasties then we should be able to label that it doesn’t. All we have to lose is fear and confusion. Of course, CAFOs and Monstersanto’s ilk thrives on that confusion and fears losing profits.