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

The state of Missouri’s argument is interesting because, even though it won the day, it also significantly narrowed the potential scope of the law by asserting that Tofurkey’s products did not violate the law. Plaintiffs sought to appeal the decision on the preliminary injunction, but the Court of Appeals denied the request.

Arkansas Challenge

In Arkansas, producers of plant-based or cell-cultured meat products may be fined for employing terms that describe meat when describing products that aren’t derived from animals. The law also constrains the use of phrases like “almond milk” and “cauliflower rice” to describe other plant-based alternatives to conventional foods. The statute does not offer an exception for plant-based meat producers that clearly identify their products as being vegetarian, vegan, or made from plants.

Soon after the Arkansas law was enacted, the American Civil Liberties Union, Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and ACLU of Arkansas, on behalf of Tofurkey (Plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit challenging the law on similar grounds to that of the Missouri case. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the Arkansas law places “a restriction on commercial speech that prevents companies from sharing truthful and non-misleading information about their products. It does nothing to protect the public from potentially misleading information. Instead, it creates consumer confusion where none existed before in order to impede competition.” Arkansas has stated that it doesn’t intend to begin enforcement of the challenged law until case is resolved.

In many ways, the Missouri and Arkansas laws are similar. So are the lawsuits. Yet, whereas the judge in Missouri denied the request for the preliminary injunction, the Arkansas judge granted it. Consequently, Arkansas is barred from enforcing the law against Tofurky until the case has been decided. In its December decision, the Arkansas court ruled that Tofurkey would likely prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claim—that is to say, the court was convinced that the Arkansas law likely violated the First Amendment. The court also ruled that the threat faced by Tofurkey as a result of the law was so substantial that an injunction preventing Arkansas from enforcing the law was necessary.

Collectively, these cases represent two very capable judges reading two similar laws, and applying them to similar facts, but each reaching very different conclusions. One could argue that the differences in the respective laws made the difference in the cases, but that will provide scant comfort to those affected by similar laws in other places. For obvious reasons, it’s vitally important that laws are applied fairly and uniformly both within and beyond jurisdictional boundaries. When judges issue arguably divergent rulings in similar cases, the cases are often appealed to higher courts, who will then set a uniform standard. How higher courts will ultimately reconcile the Missouri and Arkansas decisions, or even whether they will, remains to be seen. Any sort of final decision is likely years away. By then, the words we use to discuss plant-based or cell-cultured meats will have likely undergone significant additional shifts. Such is nature of English in these increasingly fast-paced times.

Rules are in notoriously short supply in the English language but attempting to rectify that by legislating new rules is almost certainly destined to fail. Perhaps technology, just as it may one day allow us to sustainably end world hunger, will also eradicate legal ambiguity. Perhaps then we’ll no longer need to meet at the courthouse and ask the judge to mete out justice regarding the meaning of “meat.” But that of course would open a whole new can of worms.

Chappelle is a food industry lawyer and consultant at Food Industry Counsel, LLC. Reach him at [email protected]. Stevens, also a food industry attorney, is a founding member of Food Industry Counsel, LLC. Reach him at [email protected].