Analyze how the First Amendment applies to commercial speech
Instructions
Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb’s statement, “[a]n almond doesn’t lactate,” was made to explain why the Food and Drug Administration solicited public comment on whether manufacturers of non-dairy beverages such as almond milk should be prohibited from labeling their products as “milk.” Over the last few decades, more plant-based foods are being marketed as substitutions for other products: veggie burgers and various nut and grain based milks for example. The manufacturers of the original products such as the dairy and cattle industries, have lobbied states to pass laws against the use of terms like milk on foods that do not contain the traditional animal product because they are losing some market share to the alternative foods as consumers change their eating habits. In response to such legislation, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging such a law in Arkansas.
In the case of Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to restrict commercial speech, the government must have a substantial interest, the regulation must directly and materially advance the government’s interest, and the regulation has to be narrowly tailored. Most often, the interest that industry raises is that government has a substantial interest in making sure that consumers are not confused by product labels. In a post of at least 250 words, respond to the following:
1 – Explain whether or not you believe labels such as veggie burger, soy milk, or cauliflower rice actually cause confusion to consumers.
2 – Rather than prohibiting brands like Silk and Beyond Meat from using words like “milk” and “meat” on their labels, present at least 1 alternative way to make clear what is in the alternative food product.
