Censorship and Sensibility: Does the First Amendment Allow the FDA to Change the Meanings of Words?
The question of whether the Constitution allows the government to change the meanings of words is receiving renewed interest in the aftermath of the FDA’s announcement that it intends to examine whether it should begin enforcing milk “standard of identity” regulations. These restrict the use of the word “milk” to cow’s milk and thus ban almond milk and coconut milk from being labeled as almond milk and coconut milk. Even so, the government’s attempts to change our language stretch back a century. This article begins by discussing the relevant regulations before turning to the varying levels of First Amendment protection granted to commercial speech in general, and food labels in particular, throughout U.S. history. It concludes with an analysis of the likely results should the FDA follow through with these plans and face a First Amendment challenge in court, and the article finds that the proposed change in enforcement would likely violate the First Amendment.
Related Cases

Commercial Speech | First Amendment | Food Freedom
Lawsuit seeks to strike down regulations that prevent businesses from truthfully labeling products
The First Amendment does not allow the government to decide which facts consumers are allowed to know. Yet the federal government is preventing tens of millions of Americans with sensitive stomachs from receiving the information…

Commercial Speech | First Amendment | Food Freedom
Oklahoma requires vegan products to rewrite their labels to the meat lobby’s satisfaction
Oklahoma requires plant-based meat products to include a massive disclaimer on their label, similar to that seen on tobacco products. IJ is challenging this foolish regulation that does nothing to promote public safety and also…

Commercial Speech | First Amendment
An Arizona county uses its zoning code to suspend constitutional rights
Yavapai County’s zoning system almost crippled Joshua’s and Emily’s wedding retreat business that they were running on their property. The pandemic made it impossible to pursue their legal claims, and so we voluntarily dismissed their…