TITLE

Got Money for Milk Advertising? Not Anymore

AUTHOR(S)
Lewczak, Joseph; Starr, Ivana
PUB. DATE
July 2004
SOURCE
Marketing Management;Jul/Aug2004, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p49
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
This article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that the Dairy Promotion Program, which was established by Congress under the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 to promote dairy products, violated the First Amendment rights of dairy producers. The Dairy Act generally requires that all producers of milk pay to the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board an assessment of 15 cents for each hundredweight of milk marketed commercially to finance and administer promotional projects. The Dairy Act does not, however, permit any dairy producers that disagree with the promotional projects to withhold payment of the assessments. A portion of the assessments collected by the Dairy Board have been used to fund the Got Milk? campaign. Tired of supporting advertising that they felt did not accurately portray their farming methods and the quality of their products, John and Brenda Cochran, operators of a dairy farm in Westfield, Pennsylvania, brought suit against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, claiming that the Dairy Act's assessment program violated their First Amendment rights by compelling them to speak. They also sought an injunction to stop future collection of the dairy assessment. The Third Circuit held that the Dairy Act is a stand-alone law and the compelled assessments for generic dairy advertising are not germane to a larger regulatory purpose other than the speech itself. Unlike the laws regulating tree fruit growers, the court here found that the various federal laws regulating milk producers did not create a cooperative arrangement that required the milk producers to be bound together and obligated to market their products to a specific set of rules.
ACCESSION #
14096293

 

Related Articles

  • What to Make of the Federal Order System. Smith, Pamela Accetta // Dairy Field;Mar2003, Vol. 186 Issue 3, p6 

    Comments on the proposed federal milk order reform in the U.S. Allegations that the order is damaging to western producers of cheese, whey, butter and powder; Principal difference between the federal order system in the eastern and western regions in the U.S.

  • Farm-bill dairy decision really not so scary. DAILEY, DUANE // Missouri Ruralist;Oct2014, Vol. 154 Issue 10, p56 

    The article offers information on the new safety net provided by the 2014 Farm Bill in the U.S. that protects not milk prices, but a squeeze on margins.

  • New 'White Stuff' campaign. Riley, Jonathan // Farmers Weekly;6/27/2003, Vol. 138 Issue 25, p12 

    Reports that Scottish milk processors have joined forces with dairy farmers to launch an advertising and marketing campaign in Scotland in 2003. Companies that will provide the funding for the campaign; Objectives of the campaign; Reaction to the campaign.

  • Watch language when conveying ad message. Semon, Thomas T. // Marketing News;10/1/2005, Vol. 39 Issue 16, p8 

    Comments on the use of the phrase farm fresh in marketing milk. Image conjured by the phrase; Opinion that the phrase is part of the trend of language debasement; Difficulty of preserving the integrity of language; Criticism on advertisers who use the phrase.

  • Deutsch wins Milk Board's Account. Dawson, Angela // Adweek Midwest Edition;04/10/2000, Vol. 41 Issue 15, p126 

    Announces that the California Milk Processor Board has tapped Deutsch/LA to handle the creative portion of its cheese account. Comments from Eric Hirschberg, creative director from Deutsch/LA; Reason for choosing Deutsch/LA; Advertising campaign for the cheese account.

  • DAIRY SUBSIDIES BIGGEST ISSUE IN 2007. Barlas, Stephen // Dairy Field;Jan2007, Vol. 190 Issue 1, p10 

    The article reports several issues related to the 2007 farm bill and the federal milk programs in the U.S. Several dairy product companies have agreed to eliminate milk marketing orders, milk price supports and the Milk Income Loss Contact program to let milk prices sit at free market levels....

  • Senate Proposal Would Double MILC. Huffman, J. Mark // Dairy Foods;Apr2005, Vol. 106 Issue 4, p13 

    Reports that a bi-partisan group of dairy state lawmakers is pushing a measure through the U.S. Senate to double the size of the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) subsidy, which provides payments to producers when milk prices fall. Co-sponsors of the measure; Provisions of the measure; Dairy...

  • The last bite.  // Prepared Foods;Feb97, Vol. 166 Issue 2, p118 

    Presents updates on the food industry and its market. A new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation on milk labeling; New labels to illustrate fat-free and lowfat options; New FDA regulation as the result of partnership between the milk industry and the Center for Science in the Public...

  • Washington watch.  // Dairy Foods;Mar2002, Vol. 103 Issue 3, p11 

    Presents legal update on the dairy industry in the U.S. as of March 2002. Issues regarding the changes in the Federal Milk Marketing Order system; Approval of the use of activated lactoferrin on fresh beef; Action taken by the Foreign Agriculture Service regarding the use of the Dairy Export...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics