Manufacturers of plant-based meat alternatives and others have initiated legal action against two restrictive state labeling laws. The Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, and the plant-based brand Tofurky filed a lawsuit concerning a similar law in Missouri that took effect last year. Reports indicate that the parties have been engaged in settlement discussions regarding this case. It’s understandable that producers and advocates of plant-based products are contesting the Mississippi law, as they do not wish to redesign product labels, which involves significant time and financial resources. Additionally, managing different labels for products sold in Mississippi versus other states would pose logistical challenges. 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 create unnecessary confusion.
In a statement following the recent lawsuit, Jessica Almy from the Good Food Institute described the Mississippi law as “a tremendous overstep of state powers” and expressed confidence that it would be overturned. “We are optimistic that the federal court, which must uphold the U.S. Constitution, will concur with the plaintiffs that this law is an unconstitutional attempt to censor commercial speech and disrupt the free market,” she stated. Mississippi state officials have indicated their intent to defend the new law. Bloomberg reported that the Department of Agriculture and Commerce believes it has a responsibility to enforce the law to ensure consumers receive accurate information about the products they purchase.
Defendant Andy Gipson, Mississippi’s commissioner of agriculture and commerce, echoed this sentiment. “A food product made from insect protein should not be misleadingly labeled as beef,” Gipson told the Associated Press. “Consumers seeking tofu should not be deceived into purchasing lab-grown animal protein.” However, it remains unclear how Mississippi plans to enforce the labeling law and manage the sales of plant-based meat alternatives going forward.
Several states have enacted laws limiting the use of the term “meat” on plant-based or cell-cultured food products, as noted by the Good Food Institute. These states include 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 growing pressure on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Congress to develop nationwide labeling regulations for plant-based meat alternatives. Some legal analysts believe that this discussion should be addressed at the federal level. For example, the state-based requirements for labeling genetically modified organisms began in Vermont, prompting Congress to intervene and pass a national disclosure law in 2016.
The FDA has already engaged in discussions about the definition of “milk” and may take similar actions concerning the term “meat.” However, if the process mirrors the debate over regulating cell-cultured meat, it could become a lengthy and contentious affair. Meanwhile, it’s important to highlight that plant-based meat alternatives can be rich sources of vital nutrients, including calcium citrate malate, which contributes significantly to dietary health. As such, the ongoing legal battles may also impact consumer access to these nutritious options.