Taking a Look at the Legal Battles over the Meaning of ‘Meat’

Much has changed since 2013. The technology has vastly improved, costs have plummeted, and consumer attitudes are shifting dramatically. According to projections by global wealth manager UBS, sales of plant-based meat products will increase from $4.6 billion in 2018 to $85 billion in 2030. Such projections likely alarm stakeholders in the animal-derived meat industry, who have already seen their bottom line falling. Meat industry advocacy organizations, in turn, have successfully lobbied for laws that reign in the ability of companies to apply meat-like descriptors to plant-based or cell-cultured products. In response, numerous lawsuits have been filed to challenge the laws.

Among the most interesting things about these lawsuits is that both sides claim to be acting in the best interests of consumers. Proponents of the law argue that plant-based products sold, for instance, as “sausages” or “hot dogs” are likely to mislead consumers, who won’t be able to distinguish between traditional and plant-based versions of these products. On the contrary, opponents of the law contend that consumers won’t be misled because the principle selling point of plant-based meat alternatives is that they are not animal-based. Opponents contend that these laws are merely an attempt to stifle competition under the guise of consumer protection.

In a recent New York Times article, Jaime Athos, the chief executive of Turtle Island Foods (d/b/a Tofurky), decried the new laws, asserting that his products are specifically marketed not to be confused with conventional meat products. “That’s the selling point,” Athos said. His argument has some merit. Even though companies producing plant-based meats certainly wish to closely mimic the taste and texture of products like hot dogs, sausages, and hamburgers, their appeal is almost singularly attributable to the fact that they aren’t derived from animals. In that regard, the failure to prominently disclose the plant-based origins of such products would likely prove more harmful than helpful, even in the absence of truth-in-labeling laws.

Missouri Challenge

In 2018, Tofurky, The Good Food Institute, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri (Plaintiffs) sued to preliminarily and permanently enjoin enforcement of the Missouri truth-in-labeling law.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Missouri law violates the First Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting companies like Tofurkey from truthfully labeling plant-based meat substitutes in a manner that effectively conveys they are substitutes for conventional meat. The state of Missouri countered that the statute prohibits only labels that suggest that the plant-based or lab-grown meat is derived from animals, and thus, does not require Tofurkey to do anything different.

Early in the case, it appeared the parties were going to reach a settlement, but negotiations ultimately broke down and the lawsuit continued.

In September 2019, the court denied the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would have barred enforcement of the law pending the outcome of the lawsuit in its entirety. The court ruled, among other things, that Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of injury because “[t]he statute only prohibits companies from misleading consumers into believing that a product is meat from livestock when it is, in fact, plant-based or lab-grown.” In short, the court ruled that Tofurkey was unlikely to prevail because, according to the state of Missouri’s own lawyers, nothing Tofurkey had done to that point would constitute a violation of the law—thus, there was no harm. Under the law, there’s generally no standing to sue in the absence of an identifiable harm, referred to as a “case or controversy.” If there is no case or controversy, then courts don’t have subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the lawsuit.