The Ohio milk labeling lawsuits case in Ohio clearly demonstrates how slowly the federal government moves and the importance of state's rights and local control. Three years ago, Ohio officials ordered an emergency milk labeling be placed on every jug or carton produced in the Buckeye State. The issue remains tied up in the court system with opposing sides battling over First Amendment rights and the difference between hormone-supplemented and nonhormone-supplemented cows.
Milk labeling rules include specific requirements relating to cows which have been injected with synthetic growth hormones. Current rules disallow claims that milk is hormone-free or has no hormones. Dairy farmers must also heed strict mandates which require the positioning of a label detailing the stance of the federal Food and Drug Administration if information stating the cows used to produce the milk are not given hormones. The current FDA belief system determined there is not any "significant difference" between milk from cows injected with synthetic hormones and the milk from synthetic free livestock.
During the Strickland administration the Ohio Department of Agriculture adopted the milk labeling rules as an emergency measure. The International Dairy Foods Association and the Organic Trade Association filed a lawsuit to overturn the mandate. According to ODA representative Andrew Ware, the rules remain "on the books" but are not currently enforced.
Such a disconnect between state law, federal regulations and the backlogged court system make it virtually impossible for a true piece of emergency legislation to be passed in a time frame which could aid the health of consumers. Why should a FDA disclaimer have to accompany a label alerting consumers to the fact that the milk they are drinking stems from hormone-free cows?
In this particular case the state mindset to bend over backward to not allow labeling which alerts consumers to origin of a grocery item is flawed. Ohio farmers should not be limited in their ability to truthfully promote the healthy aspects of milk regardless of how insignificant current FDA policies consider the difference. Since the lawsuit cites a federal civil rights violation, the legal wrangling jumped to a higher level, leaving dairy farmers in limbo for three years.
Even thought the U.S. federal agency does not consider the difference important consumers have the right to know if synthetic hormones were injected into the dairy cows. The European Union and Canada banned the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) to enhance milk production on dairy farms. In an effort to bow to the will of the federal government, the former Democratic administration attempted to add a law which inhibits the consumers' ability to make an informed purchasing decision.
After the FDA granted approval for the synthetic hormone, agency officials decided that labels stating any milk is hormone free are incorrect. According to Ware, the FDA believes that a bovine growth hormone produces naturally during the milk development process. Federal officials fail to understand the difference between a synthetic injection of a hormone does alter the ingredients in milk produced naturally by cows. The Ohio Agriculture Department anticipates a settlement will be reached on the milk labeling law in the coming weeks.
There are no comments yet