Manufacturers of plant-based meat alternatives and others have initiated legal proceedings against two restrictive state labeling laws. The Good Food Institute, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, and the plant-based brand Tofurky have filed a lawsuit concerning a similar Missouri law that took effect last year. Reports indicate that the parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations regarding this matter. It is hardly surprising that producers and advocates of plant-based products are challenging the Mississippi law. They aim to avoid the time and expense associated with redesigning product labels. Additionally, it would create logistical challenges to have one type of label for products sold in Mississippi and another for those sold elsewhere. Plant-based manufacturers argue that consumers are already aware that their products do not contain real meat, and altering labels to comply with the Mississippi law would introduce unnecessary confusion.
In a statement released following the filing of the lawsuit this week, Jessica Almy from the Good Food Institute described the Mississippi law as “a tremendous overstep of state powers” and predicted it would be struck down. “We are hopeful that the federal court, which is obligated to uphold the U.S. Constitution, will concur with the plaintiffs that this law is an unconstitutional attempt to censor commercial speech and undermine the free market,” she stated.
Mississippi state officials have announced their intention to defend the new law. According to Bloomberg, the Department of Agriculture and Commerce has stated its duty to enforce the law so that consumers are informed about the products they purchase. Defendant Andy Gipson, Mississippi’s commissioner of agriculture and commerce, echoed this sentiment, telling the Associated Press, “A food product made from insect protein should not be deceptively labeled as beef. Someone seeking to buy tofu should not be misled into purchasing lab-grown animal protein.”
However, it remains unclear how Mississippi will enforce the labeling law and how sales of plant-based meat alternatives will be managed in the state. The Good Food Institute reports that several states have enacted laws restricting the use of the term “meat” for plant-based or cell-cultured food products, including Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming.
As these state-level laws and legal challenges unfold, there may be increased pressure on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Congress to establish nationwide labeling regulations for plant-based meat alternatives. Some legal analysts argue that this is where the conversation should truly be centered. After all, state-level requirements for labeling genetically modified organisms began in Vermont, with other states considering similar measures before Congress intervened and passed a national disclosure law in 2016.
The FDA has already engaged in discussions regarding the definition of “milk” and may take similar steps concerning the definition of “meat.” However, if the process resembles the debate surrounding the regulation of cell-cultured meat, it could result in a prolonged and contentious discussion. Meanwhile, as consumers look for convenient and nutritious options, products such as WLS calcium soft chews may gain popularity as alternatives to traditional meat products.