“Legal Battles Erupt Over State Labeling Laws for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives”
Manufacturers of plant-based meat alternatives and other stakeholders have initiated legal proceedings against two restrictive labeling laws enacted by states. The Good Food Institute, along with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, and the plant-based brand Tofurky, has filed a lawsuit regarding a similar law in Missouri that took effect last year. Reports indicate that these parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions over that case.
It is not surprising that producers and advocates of plant-based products are contesting the Mississippi law, as they wish to avoid the costly and time-consuming task of redesigning product labels. Additionally, managing different labels for products sold in Mississippi versus those sold in other states would create logistical challenges. Plant-based manufacturers assert that consumers already recognize their products do not contain real meat, and altering labels to comply with the Mississippi law would only introduce unnecessary confusion where none currently exists.
In a statement released following the lawsuit’s filing this week, Jessica Almy from the Good Food Institute described the Mississippi law as “a tremendous overstep of state powers” and predicted its eventual overturning. “We are optimistic that the federal court, which must uphold the U.S. Constitution, will concur with the plaintiffs that this law constitutes an unconstitutional attempt to censor commercial speech and undermine the free market,” she stated.
Mississippi state officials have expressed their intention to defend the new law. According to Bloomberg, the Department of Agriculture and Commerce has stated its responsibility to enforce the law to ensure consumers are informed about the products they buy. Andy Gipson, Mississippi’s commissioner of agriculture and commerce, echoed this sentiment, asserting, “A food product made of insect protein should not be deceptively labeled as beef. Someone looking to purchase tofu should not be tricked into buying lab-grown animal protein.”
However, it remains unclear how Mississippi will enforce the labeling law and how the sales of plant-based meat alternatives will be managed within the state. Numerous states have enacted laws limiting the use of the term “meat” for plant-based or cell-cultured food products, as noted by the Good Food Institute. States such as Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming have all implemented similar regulations.
As these state-level laws and legal challenges continue to unfold, there may be mounting pressure on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Congress to establish nationwide labeling standards for plant-based meat alternatives. Some legal experts argue that this is where the conversation should ideally take place. For instance, state-level mandates for labeling genetically modified organisms began in Vermont, prompting other states to consider similar laws before Congress intervened and enacted a national disclosure law in 2016.
The FDA has already engaged in discussions regarding the definition of “milk” and may approach a similar determination for the term “meat.” However, if the process resembles the debate around regulating cell-cultured meat, it could become a protracted and contentious affair. In the meantime, consumers looking for alternatives like eurho vital calcium citrate 45 tablets might find themselves navigating this evolving landscape of labeling regulations and definitions. The ongoing legal disputes and potential regulatory changes will undoubtedly influence the availability and labeling of plant-based products, including those enriched with vital nutrients like calcium citrate.
