Legal Opinion · Dissent

Internation Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Amestoy

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided August 8, 1996No. 876, Docket 95-7819Published

1DissentLeval, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. Vermont’s regulation requiring disclosure of use of rBST in milk production was based on substantial state interests, including worries about rBST’s impact on human and cow health, fears for the survival of small dairy farms, and concerns about the manipulation of nature through biotechnology. The objective of the plaintiff milk producers is to conceal their use of rBST from consumers. The policy of the First Amendment, in its application to commercial speech, is to favor the flow of accurate, relevant information. The majority’s invocation of the First Amendment to…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. PruneYard Shopping Center v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Riley v. National Federation of Blind of North Carolina, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API