Food Fraud & the First Amendment
The Pennsylvania Dep’t of Agriculture has decided to keep consumers from knowing whether the milk they buy is free of certain hormones:
Dennis Wolff, Pennsylvania’s agriculture secretary [has] announced a crackdown on “absence labeling” on milk, meaning labels that tell consumers what isn’t in a product rather than what is. He argues that “hormone free” labels are misleading because cows produce hormones naturally. Even labels that are more carefully worded, such as “contains no artificial hormones” will soon be verboten in Pennsylvania because Mr. Wolff said that there were no scientific tests to prove the truth of such a claim.
On first glance, this might seem like a classic case for First Amendment intervention. A reporter asks ” as long as the claim is accurate, isn’t the point of labels to differentiate one product from another?” He warns that “using Mr. Wolff’s reasoning, you could argue that organic labels on milk are unfair because they suggest that non-organic food is inferior. The same goes for labels for “natural,” “from grass-fed cows” and “locally produced.””
However, Rebecca Tushnet counsels caution, especially given consumers’ limited opportunities to process information. Commenting on controversy over “genetically modified organism” labeling, she writes:
Establishing that some consumers wish to avoid GMO foods on non-safety grounds does nothing to refute either of the FDA’s major premises: GMO foods are safe, and labeling will mislead some significant number of consumers about safety.
Tushnet’s position makes sense to me, but I am afraid that captured regulators may provoke courts to impose sweeping First Amendment limits on advertising regulation. Instead of picking on consumers with preferences for less chemical cow enhancement, why aren’t they taking on real “food frauds?” For example, here’s the CSPI on Smucker’s:
All varieties of Smucker’s Simply Fruit contain more fruit syrup than actual fruit. And the syrup doesn’t even come from the fruit in the products’ names, but from (cheaper) apple, pineapple, or pear juice concentrate.
This strikes me as much worse for consumers than the “absence labeling” in the milk context. But perhaps we should be willing to accept some questionable priorities now in exchange for First Amendment flexibility that permits future action on real food fraud.