Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Nanny State

Florida Creamery Fights Gov-Mandated Mislabeling of Skim Milk

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 11.20.2014 2:55 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Ocheesee Creamery
(Ocheesee Creamery)
Ocheesee Creamery/Facebook

Florida-based Ocheesee Creamery is fighting a state agricultural department rule that bars the business from accurately labelling its skim milk as skim milk. Because creamery owner Mary Lou Wesselhoeft does not inject vitamin A into the milk, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Serices (DACS) says she can only label it "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed". 

Ocheesee Creamery and the Institute for Justice (IJ) are challenging this labeling requirement, which certainly doesn't make for spectacular marketing. But Wesselhoeft and IJ go one step further and say that the label is actively misleading to consumers, since her skim milk is not a "milk product" but whole, natural milk with the cream skimmed off. This is, by definition, how skim milk is made.

"It is unconstitutional for government to force businesses to mislead their customers," states IJ, accusing the Florida government of claiming "the power to change the definition of ordinary words." 

Florida law requires those who sell skim milk—a process that necessarily means removing a lot of the milk's natural nutrients—to artificially boost the beverage's vitamin-A level until it matches that found in whole milk. Wesselhoeft refuses to do so, citing an anti-additive philosophy she shares with her customers. But the state says without vitamin A enhancement, she can't call the product skim milk, nor will they negotiate with her on other acceptable labeling, according to the creamery's lawsuit. 

"The government is censoring me from telling my customers what is in the milk they want to buy," said Wesslhoeft. "I have a right to label the skim milk I want to sell as exactly what it is: pasteurized skim milk."

Her case, Ocheesee Creamery v. Putnam and Newton, was filed in federal court Thursday. The case is part of IJ's National Food Freedom Initiative, a campaign consisting of "property rights, economic liberty and free speech challenges to laws that interfere with the ability of Americans to produce, market, procure and consume the foods of their choice." So far, the initiative has seen success in a challenge to Oregon's ban on raw milk advertising; a challenge to a Miami Shores, Florida, ban on front-yard vegetable gardening and Minnesota restrictions on selling homemade baked goods are ongoing. 

Wesselhoeft and her husband and creamery co-owner Paul aren't seeking monetary damages, only the right to "engage in truthful speech about its lawful skim milk." 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Obama's Immigration Action: Probably Legal but Also Unprecedented, Productive Policy but Troublesome Politics

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Nanny StateFood LabelingFarmingFloridaFree SpeechFood Freedom
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (57)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

    "the power to change the definition of ordinary words."

    Milk equality!

    1. WTF   11 years ago

      Newspeak.

  2. Episiarch   11 years ago

    This labeling is bullshit, but...who the fuck in their right mind wants skim milk? Ever? For anything?!?

    1. Brett L   11 years ago

      Everyone who was brainwashed by 30 years of US government-backed "Fat is bad" nutritional misinformation?

      1. Poppa Kilo   11 years ago

        Hey, it can keep you from getting your essential dietary carbohydrates.

        Of which there are none, interestingly - although Iowa corn farmers might argue the point.

    2. tarran   11 years ago

      People suffering from disorders of the pancreas....

      I know a couple of people.

      1. Episiarch   11 years ago

        Fuck NutraSweet and all his depraved kind. Don't tell him I said that, by the way. He'll hit me.

        1. WTF   11 years ago

          Like you don't love it. Unless you forget your safe word.

          1. Almanian!   11 years ago

            OMAHA! OMAHA!!! OMMMMMAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

            1. Brett L   11 years ago

              Ruprick, do we need the genital cuff?

              1. Episiarch   11 years ago

                May I go to the bathroom?

                1. seguin   11 years ago

                  .....Aaaah, thank you.

            2. Florida Man   11 years ago

              Leave the cork on the fork.

              1. Brett L   11 years ago

                Why is the cork on the fork?

                1. WTF   11 years ago

                  We've got culture coming out our ass.

                2. Florida Man   11 years ago

                  The prevent him from hurting himself....and others.

    3. flye   11 years ago

      I only drink Malk. It's naturally skim.

      1. Episiarch   11 years ago

        Now with Vitamin R!

      2. Andrew S.   11 years ago

        But my bones are so brittle!

    4. The Hyperbole   11 years ago

      The nice thing about skim milk is when you are running low you can just top off the jug at the sink.

      1. GroundTruth   11 years ago

        Another child of the depression!

    5. Warty   11 years ago

      I want people to continue drinking skim milk so that they subsidize my cream consumption. You ever drink a glass of half-and-half? DELICIOUS.

      1. Brett L   11 years ago

        'Tis the season for egg nog breves.

      2. Almanian!   11 years ago

        My wife's gone all stupid with the skim and "organic". So, every once in awhile, I buy myself a pint or half gallon of plain old whole milk and drink a couple glasses.

        So. Delicious. Mmmm....whatever's left I use for a bowl of Wheaties or Cheerios. So good with whole milk.

        I don't drink it a lot, cause I'm not a baby calf who needs to fatten up, but once in awhile....mmmmmm.

        I'll have to try the 1/2 and 1/2 🙂

        1. Brett L   11 years ago

          There is a brand someone suggested to me that is real whole milk that is pasteurized but not homogenized. I'll be damned if I can remember what it is now, but the local Earth Faire had it.

          1. Brett L   11 years ago

            So the point is that you can see clots of cream floating in it old style. I left that out.

            1. Florida Man   11 years ago

              Cool story bro

          2. Juice   11 years ago

            I buy that sort of thing at whole foods. It's this:

            http://www.organicvalley.coop/.....grassmilk/

            It tastes great and has little chunks of butter floating in it if you don't shake it up enough. The problem for me is that it's $5 for a half gallon. But it's awesome milk.

    6. Riven   11 years ago

      I'd hate to meet them.

    7. Harvard   11 years ago

      Best taken from the original spigot eh?

    8. mad.casual   11 years ago

      This labeling is bullshit, but...who the fuck in their right mind wants skim milk? Ever? For anything?!?

      Yeah, nothing beats a cool glass of white motor oil after a day of laboring in the heat! That mucusy throat slime really puts the sense of health and vigor into you.

      I prefer my milkfat churned and spread on toast or melted into mashed potatoes. Also, gotta get the cheese for deep-dish pizza from somewhere, the milk's gotta get skimmed either way.

  3. trshmnster the terrible   11 years ago

    Ocheesee Creamery

    I see what they did there.

  4. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

    The "skim" in skim milk isn't a process performed on the milk, it's a process performed on the dairy.

  5. Almanian!   11 years ago

    Nothing left to cut.

  6. Harvey_birdman   11 years ago

    BRAWNDO! It's got electrolytes!

  7. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

    Milk regulations: America's First Socialized Medicine.

  8. Raston Bot   11 years ago

    "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed" is the label for a reason and that reason is public fucking health, you asshole cavemen. If that label's not on there, then human children will die from vitamin A deficiency. What the fuck is wrong with you fucking people?!

    /MPH graduate working at USDA's FSIS

    1. Rhywun   11 years ago

      Then stick a fucking carrot in it.

    2. seguin   11 years ago

      Because, of course, the minute the labels are removed, parents become total blithering morons and their children will die horrible, painful deaths.

      1. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

        Actually, the parents are generally blithering morons before the label is removed. The bad part is their children don't die horrible, painful deaths. Instead, their children survive and grow up to be blithering morons and they have kids, etc. etc. until our country turns into a socialist hellhole.

        1. mad.casual   11 years ago

          Actually, the parents are generally blithering morons before the label is removed.

          True. I know several families that lament having to keep skim, 2%, and whole in their fridge.

          I assume they have cans of peanuts, hazelnuts, cashews, walnuts, macademia nuts, *and* mixed nuts in their pantry. Right next to the microwave popcorn with and without cheese-flavoring, which is below the bags of precooked popcorn, with and without powdered cheese, which is right below the powdered cheese.

    3. seguin   11 years ago

      LABELS ARE WHAT SEPARATE MEN FROM BEASTS! LABELS ARE THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILIZATION! FROM THE DAY THE FIRST LAND-DWELLING HALF-FISH FLOPPED ITS WAY ONSHORE, IT HAS BEEN DRIVEN BY A SINGULAR PURPOSE: TO READ LABELS AND FOLLOW THEIR COMMANDS!

      YEEEEUUUUURGH!

  9. RAHeinlein   11 years ago

    Are you proposing that all technical food definitions be tossed out? Interesting that these issues seem to occur with the organic/natural food movement. I'd like to see the Institute for Justice stand up regarding GMO-label and the cries for banning food ingredients.

    So-called "Food Freedom" is obviously only for those selling the "right" types of foods...

  10. Worm   11 years ago

    Just call it Skim milk -A , that's accurate

    1. RAHeinlein   11 years ago

      Essentially, that is the lawful label:

      "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed".

      The regs also allows her to make accurate claims regarding fat level and the fact that fat was removed, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about...

      1. Worm   11 years ago

        Maybe you are right, because "whole, natural milk with the cream skimmed off" is a milk product , but the author of this article disagrees that it is a milk product .

      2. Sigivald   11 years ago

        I suppose they could compromise, in an ideal world, with "Skim Milk, Vitamin A not re-added", or "Skim Milk, Low Vitamin A".

        On the grounds that if there's any consumer interest in vitamin A levels, as assumed by the definitions, that's a clear way of describing the product with that in mind, that is neither Seriously Off-putting nor purely euphemistic.

        It seems a good compromise between noting the reduced relative vitamin level and the "normal use" meaning of skim milk.

        1. Sigivald   11 years ago

          (By which I mean, in parallel to the way hippies want "SCARY GMO!!!" labeling, that the longer and more complex the label, the more people will - incorrectly - assume something is "bad" or "super processed and icky".

          "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed" markets a lot worse than, say, "Skim Milk, Low Vitamin A", while the latter probably reflects what most consumers would tend to want to call it more accurately, in that apart from not re-adding A, it's exactly "skim milk", yes?)

          1. RAHeinlein   11 years ago

            Agreed, that this is "skim milk" sans Vit A addition (assuming the dairy is truthfully representing their product - of which I am skeptical since they have decided they can redefine milk standards). "Low" vitamin A isn't valid.

            This regulation is actually commercially relevant because of current use as a grading and nutritional standard.

      3. Banjos   11 years ago

        "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed" is confusing and not as easy to understand as "skim milk" to the average consumer. Plus it's wordy and unattractive on a product. While their competitors, who add vitamin A, get the advantage of simply labeling their product "skim milk" Why you can't understand the fuss is beyond me.

        1. RAHeinlein   11 years ago

          Again, I submit, are you advocating elimination of all technical definitions/grading standards for food products? There IS an existing definition - either add the necessary vitamin A, petition for an exclusion, OR simply add already sanctioned language.

          What I fail to understand is ENB's title claim regarding "Gov-mandated mislabeling" which obviously isn't accurate and the Ocheesee/ "free speech" argument.

          I certainly don't disagree with your comments regarding marketing, but there is a rational, technical basis for "defining" ingredients/products which the greater industry is obliged to follow. Milk/dairy standards are particularly strict, and not without warrant even in "modern" society given recent adulteration issues.

          1. SQRLSY One   11 years ago

            What the fuss is about, is speech control. Just because some dollars are exchanged, truthful speech is prohibited, is what this boils down to. If you LIE when selling your product, Government Almighty can step in and spank your ass, I am OK with that. This was NOT the case here! Guv Almighty is obviously over-reaching in this case... They are micro-managing weasels!

          2. wwhorton   11 years ago

            Late to the party, sorry.

            What you're saying would be fine if the government-sanctioned milk had to be labeled, "Vitamin A Enriched Skim Milk", which is not currently the case. What this dairy is selling is closer to the initial state of milk, isn't it, since all they've done is skim the cream off. In any other context, the least-messed-with thing would be the standard, baseline thing.

            If anything, the regulation should be to add verbiage to regular skim milk indicating that Vitamin A (and D) was added.

            1. Mark22   11 years ago

              The term "skim milk" isn't very meaningful at all. It's like "brew beer" or "ferment grape". What is that supposed to mean?

              The descriptive term would be "skimmed milk". That's what they should call it, possibly with a requirement of adding a warning ("contains lower vitamin A levels than skim milk").

  11. missyforsaleepy   11 years ago

    my friend's mother makes $64 /hr on the internet . She has been out of work for ten months but last month her income was $18244 just working on the internet for a few hours. go to website....

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  12. Mark22   11 years ago

    Why not call it "skimmed milk"? That's more descriptive anyway.

  13. joe.shuren   10 years ago

    21 CFR 160.10 requires artificial nutrients must be added to food only when the label makes a nutrient claim ("lowfat, non-fat, or reduced fat" are specified) along with a standard term such as "milk." I question whether a "skim milk" label makes a nutritional claim as does "non-fat milk". The state ordered the Creamery not to make any health claims, which they haven't. Also, the Creamery does not sell products interstate and so not governed by federal rules. Even if it were, it might be exempt because it is a small business, as in other states. The Creamery points out that it sells milk in clear glass containers and any added artificial Vitamin A would be destroyed by sunlight in a short time. Florida tests Grade A milk for bacteria but not for nutritive value or amount of additives, so all the state wants is for the Creamery to install expensive useless equipment or mislabel the milk, which they agree can be called "milk" right from the cow. However, excess Vitamin A can be toxic, and some customers have asked for pasteurized skim milk without artificial additives. They should be provided the choice by a local small business without state interference. They have tried for years to persuade the bureaucracy hence this suit (at ij.org ). The judge may rule before November 2015.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Texans Gain the Right To Try Individualized Medical Treatments

J.D. Tuccille | 6.6.2025 7:00 AM

Review: There Are No Top-Down Solutions to the Problems Depicted in Adolescence

Autumn Billings | From the July 2025 issue

Review: A Comic Book Villain Runs for Mayor of New York in the New Daredevil Series

Joe Lancaster | From the July 2025 issue

Brickbat: Friends in High Places

Charles Oliver | 6.6.2025 4:00 AM

Is the Supreme Court Really That Divided? The Facts Say No.

Billy Binion | 6.5.2025 5:21 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!