Making Sense of Recent Legal History
by: Alex Valentine Posted on: December 08, 2013
Editor’s Note: Did you know that our Supreme Court ruled—seventeen years ago—that corporations’ right to negative speech trumps citizens’/consumers’ right to know what they’re ingesting? Learn how it went down.
By Alex Valentine
The Story of a Vermont Labeling Law and a Corporation’s Claim to Free Speech
The First Amendment, in addition to being considered an essential right, has also been one of the most fiercely protected and legally disputed in America. Factors such as the proliferation of digital communications, growing corporate entities and the development of new technologies are bound to make protecting this right even more complicated in the years to come.
In fact, they already have. Exemplifying many of these factors is the 1996 federal Court of Appeals case International Dairy Foods Association v. Jeffrey Amestoy, Chief Justice of Vermont.
While the freedom to write, speak, and believe is regarded as a fundamental right and foundational to the Bill of Rights, fewer know that the First Amendment also protects negative free speech. Negative free speech was added by the Supreme Court as a provision to guarantee the freedom of those who wish to refrain from public speech. In the case of International Dairy Foods, this protection of negative free speech was evoked in a struggle between the free speech of corporations and the individuals’ right to know what they are consuming.
In 1996 a labeling law was passed in Vermont that would require dairy products produced from cows treated with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) to be labeled as such. rBST is a genetically engineered growth hormone. Currently the Monsanto Company is the only producer of rBST that is FDA-approved.
This law aimed to provide customers with factual information that would assist them in making informed buying decisions. The proposed labeling technique would have required producers and/or retailers to label rBST-containing milk products. In addition to the labeling, Vermont retailers would be responsible for displaying a sign explaining the labels and that the FDA had determined no significant difference between milk from rBST treated and non-treated herds.
Together the International Dairy Foods Association, Milk Industry Foundation, International Ice Cream Association, National Cheese Institute, Grocery Manufacturers of America Inc. and the National Food Processors Association appealed the law. Their legal teams argued that the labeling law infringed upon their rights to negative free speech. The court then was forced to choose whether consumers’ right to factual information trumped corporations’ rights to negative free speech.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of the dairy industry corporations, stating that the statute would mandate unconstitutional acts of speech. Regardless of if the Court was sympathetic to consumer interests, the desire of Vermont consumers to know which products originate from rBST-treated cows was ultimately insufficient.
The Court’s rationale was two-fold. First, because the FDA had already declared the use of rBST in dairy cows to be safe, the Court of Appeals ruled safety was not of concern. It should be noted that this logic assumes that the opinions of the FDA are not to be questioned. Second, the Vermont Labeling Law was struck down on the basis that if it were to be upheld, consumers’ interest in information related to production methods would continue to push further and eventually become unreasonable. The court justified this by saying that consumers genuinely interested in this type of information should seek products that are labeled voluntarily.
International Dairy Foods is a case that is a little old and perhaps a little unknown. However, it is worth pursuing an understanding of this case if only for a better understanding of one of our most principal and protected freedoms. In its essence, International Dairy Foods represents a conflict between corporate rights to negative free speech and the individual right to be an informed citizen. The outcome of this case marks a moment in which corporations’ constitutional rights chipped away at those of individual people. Despite the years that have passed since this decision in 1996, this case begs the very topical question: should corporate entities receive the same rights as humans?
Photo: Kathryn Kozowski
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Articles On Community Rights
- May 19 Part 2: Jordan Cove LNG Backers Spend Huge Money to Sway Tiny Oregon County Election
- May 2 Part 1: Oregon County Faces Gas Industry Funding, Lobbyists in Battle to Halt Jordan Cove LNG Project
- Jan 12 For Teachers and Citizens: How to Respond to Federal Immigration Raids
- Jan 5 How To Respond When Your (Local) Government Gets Sued By A Corporation
- May 25 Interview: The Working Class Movement Fighting for Local Authority
- Apr 29 Interview: Challenging Corporations’ ‘Right’ To Grow GMOs in Rural Oregon
- Nov 3 Cancer Clusters Spark Historic Pesticide Vote in Oregon
- Dec 8 The Devil In The Details of Local Law
- Dec 8 Don’t Tread On Us-A Message from Colorado
- Dec 8 Making Sense of Recent Legal History
- Dec 8 Where Push Is Coming To Shove, USA
- Nov 8 The First Big Win for the $15 Movement
- Nov 8 A Legal Definition for ‘Unsustainable Energy’?
- Oct 8 When The State Pushes Back
- Oct 8 This Crow Won’t Fly
- Oct 8 A New County Constitution
- Sep 8 Homeless Bills of Rights-New Narratives
- Sep 8 Colorado Anti-fracking Movement Heating Up!
- Sep 8 Local Initiative Process Gutted
- Aug 8 Obstacles to Asserting Rights
- Aug 8 Benton County, OR Moves Forward with Nation’s Potential First Food Bill of Rights
- Jul 8 Spokane Continues to Fight for the Right to Vote
- Jul 8 Foster Youth Bill of Rights, New Narratives
- Jul 8 Santa Monica Passes West Coast’s First Rights of Nature Ordinance
- Jun 8 Housing Justice: Fighting for Rights
- Jun 8 A Community Rights Ordinance For South Puget Sound
- Jun 8 County Government Writes History, Hydrocarbon Ban is First of its Kind
- Jun 8 Food Bills of Rights and Monsanto-Speech
- Jun 6 GM Wheat Discovered in Oregon, Benton County Continues Work on Food Bill of Rights
- May 8 Does Food Sovereignty Exist in the United States? Food and the Community Rights Movement
- May 8 Washington Community Action Network Talks Rights
- Apr 7 Under the Radar: How a Multinational Corporation Quietly Bought a County-Wide Election
- Apr 2 Day One of the Occupation of Detroit
- Mar 25 Crude Oil Trains Proposed for Grays Harbor, WA: Citizens Challenge Permitting Process
- Mar 18 Middle School Elevates its Rights above Corporations’
- Mar 12 What a Difference a Degree Makes
- Mar 2 The Story of Broadview Heights, Ohio
- Feb 17 Democracy Denied in Small Town, USA
- Feb 4 The View from Plymouth, NH
- Jan 27 Benton County’s Fight to Protect Our Seed Heritage: A Food Bill of Rights
- Jan 16 Fighting for the Right to a Sustainable Food System: Benton County, Oregon
- Jan 6 Rivers and Natural Ecosystems as Rights Bearing Subjects
- Dec 31 Case Study: The Community Right to Sustainable Energy
- Dec 24 Barnstead, NH: Establishing the Community Right to Water and Self-Governance
- Dec 19 New Section: Community Rights
- Sep 23 Changing ‘Fundemental Law’, a Case Study: Bellingham
- Mar 29 The Right to Self-Govern