COLUMBUS — Ohio’s attempts to block the use of certain dairy labels has resulted in two court cases filed in U.S. District Court in Columbus on Monday.

The International Dairy Foods Association and the Organic Trade Association each filed complaints against the state regarding the new regulations which went into effect May 22, with a 120-day implementation period. The ruling states that labels making comments about milk being produced without synthetic hormones are forbidden. A synthetic version of the natural hormone rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin) can be used to boost cattle’s milk production.

The IDFA’s lawsuit claims that Ohio’s rule, which dictates the words, font, style, case, color and size of verbiage that are allowed to appear on labels, poses unconstitutional restrictions on producers’ and consumers’ rights of free speech. The Ohio Department of Agriculture has countered in the past that such labels infringe upon the rights of farmers who do use synthetic rBST. The synthetic hormone’s producer, Monsanto, points out that scientific testing has not demonstrated any chemical difference between milk produced with or without synthetic rBST, which cannot be distinguished from the rBST naturally present in milk.

A press release sent out Monday by the OTA accuses Monsanto of throwing its lobbying weight behind the anti-labeling movement, because labels casting synthetic rBST in a negative light could impact the corporation’s sales.

Speaking by telephone from Washington, D.C., OTA Director Caren Wilcox said that what Monsanto wants is not what consumers want.

“Over 2,000 consumers contacted the [Ohio] governor’s office,” Wilcox said.

She cited a recent study done for the U.S. Department of Agriculture which found that consumers polled extremely highly in favor of labeling that states whether or not synthetic hormones were used in the production of dairy products. The IDFA cited a USDA study which reported only 15 percent of farmers are using synthetic rBST.

Knox County farmer Marilyn Ruprecht said she did not have any figures at hand, but that she knew a lot of farmers who were using rBST have been forced out of using it by a number of dairies that have begun penalizing farmers who do use the synthetic hormone.

Ruprecht’s husband, Ken, said they recently had to change dairies because of such penalties. He said that until they changed in May, they were receiving penalties amounting to thousands of dollars per month from their previous dairy.

Ruprecht is concerned about the additional expense operating without synthetic rBST would cause. He said that in the spring of 2007, he was paying $6,000 per month for feed; the same amount of feed costs $12,000 this spring, because of the amount of corn being diverted to ethanol production. He said that without synthetic rBST, the same amount of feed will produce 10 percent less milk. He and his wife both questioned the intelligence of restricting technology that makes it possible to produce more food with less feed.

“Unfortunately, it’s kind of an anti-technology movement,” he said.

“They are looking for a marketing gimmick,” said Marilyn.

IDFA communications director Peggy Armstrong said her organization is approaching the issue from the standpoint of interstate commerce. The labeling restrictions could have a strong impact on dairy producers who customarily use the same label design for all their products.

“We believe it affects virtually everyone who sells dairy products regionally or nationally,” Armstrong said.

In a news release from the IDFA, Armstrong included comments from a number of their members. Steve Schmid, president of Smith Dairy in Orrville, made a declaration that complying with the rule would cost his company more than $6,250 per label to make and implement changes, and an additional $32,000 in current inventory would become obsolete. Rob Michalak of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream said it would cost that company over $250,000 to change its wide range of packaging, and that it would additionally have to overhaul its entire distribution system to provide products with custom-made labels used only in the state of Ohio.

Dave Smith, senior director of policy development and research for the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, said it was anticipated these groups would file lawsuits in opposition to the state’s ruling.

“Based on the testimony these groups previously gave, we were not surprised by these lawsuits,” Smith said.

He said he would have to read over the text of the suits before commenting further. The OFBF is on record supporting the state’s ruling on dairy labels as it currently stands.

Cindy Brown, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Agriculture, said the agency had only just received information about the lawsuits Monday afternoon, and she couldn’t comment directly on a pending lawsuit.

“The department believes the dairy labeling rule that was adopted in May is lawful and appropriate,” Brown said.