“Mississippi Withdraws Controversial Labeling Regulation for Plant-Based Foods, Signaling Potential Resolution in Legal Battles”
According to a recent announcement from the PBFA, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture has withdrawn its proposed labeling regulation from the law enacted earlier this year and has replaced it with a version that is more acceptable to the plaintiffs. The conclusion of the lawsuit comes as no surprise. Initially, Mississippi officials introduced the new rules in September to assist manufacturers of plant-based foods in adhering to the ban on meat-related terminology by allowing a “comparable qualifier” on product labels. The plaintiffs in the plant-based sector expressed their willingness to drop the lawsuit if these revised regulations were implemented. This is likely to be a relief for plant-based food manufacturers, who prefer not to invest time and resources into redesigning labels solely for compliance in one state. They argue that consumers already understand their products do not contain real meat, and many believe that altering labels to meet state requirements would only create unnecessary confusion.
Several states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming, have enacted similar laws to that of Mississippi. Arkansas and Missouri have faced lawsuits as well. In Missouri, the plaintiffs — comprising the Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, and plant-based brand Tofurky — sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the law, but a federal judge recently denied their request, leading the plaintiffs to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in July against the Arkansas law and are currently awaiting a judge’s ruling on their request for a preliminary injunction. They seek to have the law invalidated and its enforcement postponed as the legal battle unfolds.
As of August, the National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 45 bills concerning meat labeling have been proposed across 26 states, with 17 of those being enacted in 14 states. It is possible that additional lawsuits will emerge nationwide, as manufacturers of plant-based products and their allies argue that such regulations are unconstitutional and infringe on free speech. Proponents of the laws contend that the aim is to minimize consumer confusion when plant-based items are displayed alongside meat products in retail settings.
In a bid to avoid a fragmented and costly array of state-level regulations, the meat industry is advocating for federal legislation that would limit meat-like labeling to products that actually contain meat from cows. Last month, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, mandating that products designed to mimic beef, yet lacking real meat, be labeled as “imitation.” This bill has been referred to committees, but no hearings have been scheduled as of yet.
The success of national legislation remains uncertain, and it will take time to determine the outcome of ongoing legal disputes regarding state labeling laws. The Mississippi case could serve as a model for resolving similar legal conflicts, but after five months of negotiations reached a stalemate in Missouri, it is clear that discussions do not guarantee a resolution. Additionally, as discussions continue, the potential incorporation of ingredients such as itra calcium citrate in plant-based products could further complicate the regulatory landscape, as manufacturers strive to clarify their labels while ensuring compliance with emerging laws.
