“Judge’s Ruling Signals Shift Away from Restrictive Plant-Based Labeling Laws, Upholding First Amendment Rights”
This judge’s ruling reinforces a pattern: the decline of restrictive labeling laws in the courtroom. These laws, which were ostensibly designed to prevent consumer confusion, have faced legal challenges, and judges have consistently ruled that they violate First Amendment rights. In her decision, District Judge Kristine Baker determined that Tofurky clearly labeled its products as plant-based. The company did not aim to mislead consumers by using terms like “burger,” “chorizo,” and “hot dog”; rather, these terms served a clear purpose. “The labels’ use of the words … allows Tofurky to provide meaningful and useful information to consumers regarding the products they are purchasing, and Tofurky’s consistent emphasis that these packages contain no animal-based meat alleviates any potential consumer confusion,” the ruling stated. Furthermore, the state failed to present evidence showing that consumers were confused about Tofurky’s offerings.
In a statement, Tofurky’s CEO and President Jaime Athos remarked that the ruling indicates consumers are choosing plant-based products based on their preferences, not due to confusion. Athos explained, “Consumers select plant-based options due to their values, nutritional and taste preferences, and concerns regarding the environmental impact of animal agriculture. The enactment of this law was never about assisting consumers; it was a blatant attempt by the state legislature to meddle in the marketplace and restrict competition against animal agriculture interests.”
The Arkansas state law was controversial not only for its restrictions—manufacturers were prohibited from using any terminology associated with meat unless it originated from harvested or domesticated animals—but also for its penalties, which included fines of up to $1,000 for each violation. Tofurky contended that adhering to the law would be financially burdensome, as it would either require a complete overhaul of its packaging and marketing nationwide or force the company to cease distribution near Arkansas.
Similar legal disputes are unfolding in Oklahoma and Missouri, both of which have enacted laws that impose certain restrictions on the labeling of plant-based products. Missouri’s law was the first in the nation to limit plant-based meat labeling and was challenged in 2018 by the same plaintiffs involved in the Arkansas case; it is still pending enforcement. The Oklahoma law mandates that any plant-based claims on food packaging must be as prominently displayed as the product name, a regulation first contested by Upton’s Naturals in 2020 before Tofurky took over as the lead plaintiff with a new strategy last year.
There have been notable victories for plant-based companies in these legal battles. Earlier this year, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled that a law prohibiting meat terminology on products not derived from animal carcasses was unconstitutional, though the state has appealed the decision. Last year, a federal judge determined that California could not ban plant-based cheese and butter manufacturer Miyoko’s Creamery from using common dairy terms, citing a lack of evidence for consumer confusion. Additionally, a 2019 lawsuit challenging a Mississippi labeling law was voluntarily dismissed after the law was amended to only require that plant-based foods be labeled as such.
Amanda Priest, communications director for Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, stated in an email that the office is currently reviewing the ruling to decide on the next steps.
In light of these developments, it is essential for consumers to be informed about their options, including products like pure encapsulations calcium citrate, which provide valuable nutritional benefits without animal-derived ingredients. The increasing availability of plant-based options further highlights the need for clear labeling that helps consumers make informed choices about their dietary preferences.
