A three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling that Arla Foods can no longer continue its advertising campaign implying its cheeses are safer than their competitors’ because its milk is sourced from cows not supplemented with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), according to Courthouse News Service.
In May 2017, Eli Lilly/Elanco filed a lawsuit against Arla Foods Inc. USA and Arla Foods Production LLC. At that time, Chief Judge William Griesbach, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, granted Eli Lilly/Elanco's motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction against Arla Foods and its $30 million "Live Unprocessed" ad campaign.
Arla’s television and social media ads, launched in late April 2017, featured a child's animated interpretation of rBST as a six-eyed monster with "razor-sharp horns" and electrified fur.
Approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993, Elanco markets rBST under the brand name Posilac.
In the original injunction, Griesbach further prohibited Arla from claiming that rBST or dairy products made from cows supplemented with rBST are dangerous or unsafe; that dairy products made from milk of cows supplemented with rBST are of lesser quality or less wholesome than other dairy products; or that consumers should not feel “good about eating” or “serving to their friends and family” dairy products made from milk of cows supplemented with rBST. He denied a request requiring Arla to publish “corrective” advertising.
In its unanimous 16-page ruling, the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said the lower court was right to conclude that Arla’s ads were likely to mislead consumers about the wholesomeness of products made from milk supplied by rBST-treated cows. 
-
Dave Natzke
- Editor
- Progressive Dairyman
- Email Dave Natzke
