ORLANDO, Fla. – Federal Court of Appeals ruled against Florida’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services on Monday on the skim milk labeling fight with a small Calhoun County creamery.
The Court of Appeals of the 11th US Circuit panel ruling stemmed from the skim milk labeling fight of Ocheesee Creamery, LLC, a producer of all-natural dairy products who wants to sell skim milk without additives.
However, selling non-Grade A milk products is not allowed in Florida, and the state requires replacing the Vitamin A lost in the skimming process of the cream. Ocheesee Creamery produces natural dairy products and they do not want Vitamin A to fortify their skim milk.
The state wanted to block the sales of the creamery’s skim milk products last 2012 because of the skim milk labeling fight. This led to the negotiations on getting the necessary permits under the law which deal with producing imitation milk. The decision states that there were various alternatives proposed like putting a ‘milk product’ label on the skim milk.
However, in 2014, the creamery filed a case that argued that the state violated the First Amendment by not allowing them usage of the skim milk label.
Last year, the federal district court granted a summary judgment to the state which said that it is characteristically misleading calling it a skim milk product if it doesn’t have the same amount of vitamin as whole milk.
However, the 22-page court decision on Monday about the skim milk labeling fight overturned the summary judgment of its lower court. It stated that the case record makes it clear that there are a number of easier alternatives which were discussed in the negotiations of the creamery and the state. Some of these alternatives involved an added disclosure without having to ban the use of the ‘skim milk’ label. The ruling was then sent back into the court district.
The ruling that was written by Judge Robin Rosenbaum and was joined by Judge Bryan Sentelle and Senior Judge Susan Black said that the state was not able to display that preventing the creamery to use the ‘skim milk’ term was reasonable, and not as extensive than the necessary. The ruling also added that the state’s directive was clearly more general than essential in preventing deception and ensuring the correct nutritional standards.
In the brief filed by the attorneys of the state in August, they argued that the misbranding of milk products can cause possible nutritional harm. However, the brief that was filed by the attorneys of the creamery states that ruling out truthful commercial labeling and commanding misleading commercial labeling is a violation of the First Amendment.
