milk promo in court

[Guest guest]

These dairy farmers fed up with 'Got Milk?' promotion

By The Associated Press

04.04.02

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON - A Pennsylvania dairy farming family is challenging the

mandatory promotional campaign that pays for " Got Milk? " ads, arguing

farmers shouldn't be forced to pay for advertising they don't agree with.

Joe and Cochran of Westfield, Pa., filed suit April 2 in U.S.

District Court in Scranton, seeking an end to the mandatory fee of 15 cents

per hundred pounds of milk - roughly 2 cents a gallon. The money pays for

ads featuring celebrities wearing milk mustaches, as well as commercials

touting " Ahh, the power of cheese. "

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. United Foods that a

similar program for mushroom growers violated the First Amendment guarantee

of free speech, but it ruled in the 1997 case Glickman v. Wileman Bros. &

Elliott, Inc. that joint advertisements were constitutional in heavily

regulated industries such as California fruit production.

In January 2000, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case Nature's Dairy

v. Glickman, a challenge by some dairy farmers who objected to funding the

" Got Milk? " campaign. In that case, the justices, without comment, rejected

an appeal in which the dairy farmers challenged the government's authority

to force them to finance the generic ads aimed at boosting the entire

industry.

The Cochrans, who raise 150 cows on their 200-acre farm in north-central

Pennsylvania, say they produce a superior milk without growth hormones and

don't want to pay to promote generic milk.

" We try to follow the old practices, as opposed to the more modern

concentrated operations, " said Joe Cochran, 51, whose family pays about

$3,500 a year in promotion fees. " We have the cows spread out - a little

more space, a little more freedom and a little more sunshine. "

Similar legal challenges are pending for beef and pork promotions.

" The First Amendment affords someone the right to speech, and also the right

not to speak, " said Schippers, executive director of the Center for

Individual Freedom, an Arlington, Va., group that is paying for the

Cochrans' lawsuit.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the

program, declined to comment specifically on the litigation, but said the

program had been an effective tool to increase dairy sales.

" As such, the department has been supportive of using those tools, " said

spokesman Jerry Redding.

The Cochrans' lawyer, Ben Yale of Waynesfield, Ohio, said that was not the

issue.

" This isn't a challenge to the effectiveness of the programs, " he said.

" It's simply whether a producer should have a choice. "

Related

High court won't compel mushroom growers to fund generic ads

United Foods had argued that the government's mandatory campaign forced the

company to pay for ads that benefited competitors. 06.25.01

Judge hears beef over mandatory ad campaign

Cattlemen say promotion fee violates their free-speech rights, but Beef

Board says ads are government speech not limited by the First Amendment.

01.17.02

Pork council wants to know if mandatory ad campaign is constitutional

Group asks federal judge to approve settlement worked out by Bush

administration to keep industry-funded research, promotion program going.

07.28.01

Dairy industry has got to fund 'Got Milk?' campaign

Supreme Court turns away an appeal by farmers who had challenged the

government's authority to force them to finance generic ads aimed at

boosting the entire industry. 01.10.00