Monsanto, famous for the biotech backlashes it helped spur, from Agent Orange to BT corn, is at it again.

According to this Wired story:

[…] Monsanto officials say labels like « No rBST » or « rBST-free » are misleading, unfair and deceptive. The company has recently sued one dairy for its labels. « 

Should commercial speech include freedom of creating labels for any purpose? I’d be curious to hear any counter argument.

Commercial freedom of speech is a topic I don’t know anything about, but the most border line case I heard about is Kasky v. Nike that was recently settled. Outside from clearly deceptive speech (or libel, or hate speech, outside the US), can’t one freely represent the characteristics of his products? Maybe we should ask the makers of « new and improved flavour » dog food? Or what about Kosher labels?

More details on the lawsuit , Oakhurst Dairy , Monsanto’s press release, and the FDA’s opinion on labels: the main issue for them seems to be that « no hormones » would be misleading since a) there are cow hormones in any milk b) rbST is a synthesized version of bovine somatotropin and there is no difference in the hormones detectable in the milk, except, presumably, proportions.

It seems that rbST-free, instead of hormone-free would be Ok according to the FDA. Anyone with a link to the actual documents for this case?