Court denies Tofurky appeal to Missouri meat label law
March 31, 2021 from FoodDive:
"The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Missouri law that bans the use of the term "meat" for marketing products that do not come from livestock or poultry. The ruling supports a 2019 District Court ruling denying the request for a preliminary injunction by Tofurky, the Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri.
- Missouri was sued in federal court the day before a state law went into effect which would ban plant-based and cell-cultured meat producers from using the words "meat," "beef," "chicken" and "sausages" on their labels, even if the terms "plant-based" or "vegan" are also used, Food Navigator reported.
- The plaintiffs are the Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and the plant-based brand Tofurky. Their complaint argues the new state law is unconstitutional and would criminalize the word "meat." They asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement until the lawsuit is settled.
- The Missouri law — the first in the country — was passed in May as part of an omnibus agriculture bill and was supported by the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association as a way to reduce shopper confusion and protect local ranchers. The law includes language prohibiting "misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production [of] livestock or poultry." Violations would be subject to a $1,000 fine and a one-year prison term."
Tofurky sues Louisiana over plant-based meat labeling law
October 12, 2019 FoodDive:
- "Tofurky is the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit that claims a Louisiana state law prohibiting meat terminology on food not derived from slaughtered animals is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was jointly filed by the Good Food Institute and the Animal Legal Defense Fund."
- "Under the Louisiana law, plant-based meat companies can be fined up to $500 per product, per day for using terms including "burger" and "sausage." It was signed into law by Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards on June 11, 2019, and took effect Oct. 1. The Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, which enforces the law, did not respnd to comment when contacted by Food Dive."
- "While several states have passed similar labeling laws targeting the plant-based meat industry, they have not held up well when challenged. A lawsuit in Mississippi got the state to change its labeling regulations. There are currently pending lawsuits about state labeling laws in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Missouri."
- "Considering the track record of state laws that seek to limit labeling for plant-based products, this lawsuit could have been predicted last summer when the law was first signed. Plant-based meat companies — in conjunction with partners including the Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union and Plant Based Foods Association — have been active in their opposition to laws they claim restrict their right to free speech."
- "According to reporting at the time, Louisiana's law was written and passed in order to protect the state's agricultural industry. Proponents also said they hoped to end consumer confusion."
- "The lawsuit argues there is no evidence of confusion, and that consumers understand products from manufacturers, including Tofurky, are clearly labeled as plant based."
- "Louisiana's law, however, goes further than just plant-based meat. It also prohibits anything that is not actually rice from having "rice" on its label, and would prohibit cell-based meat from being labeled as conventional meat."
- "Because the Louisiana suit and all the others about plant-based meat were filed in federal court, the outcome of this case may be determined relatively quickly. If any of the previous cases actually go to trial, the precedent will likely be applied to all of them — and future labeling laws regarding plant-based meat. States have not had the best track record on these laws — and federal lawmakers have been unsuccessful in getting a national law even considered — but the pattern may continue without a definitive legal precedent.'