Most trade law discussions of labeling relate to whether labeling is a possible alternative to a ban or similar strict prohibition on a product, or whether the labeling itself is too trade restrictive. But what would trade rules have to say when there is a government ban on labeling:
The Ohio Department of Agriculture, pursuant to an Executive Order by Governor Ted Strickland, adopted rules governing the such voluntary labeling of milk products. Specifically, these rules barred the use of “rbST Free” or equivalent composition claims on milk labels. In addition, the rules required that any production claims about milk, such as “this milk is from cows not treated with rbST,” be accompanied with a prominent disclaimer noting that the FDA has determined that there is no significant difference between milk from cows administered rbST and those that have not. The rules were influenced by, and largely followed, a 1994 FDA guidance on milk labeling.
In the usual situation, it is the labeling requirement that is said to be trade restrictive. But could banning labels also restrict trade, by preventing companies from presenting key characteristics of a product to consumers?
