Mississippi prohibits grocery stores from calling veggie burgers "veggie burgers"

There have been good months for the plant-based meat movement – so good that opponents of the fledgling industry are beginning to mobilize.

This week, a new law came into force in Mississippi. The state now prohibits plant-based meat suppliers from using labels as "veggie burger" or "vegan hot dog" on their products. Such labels can be punished by imprisonment. Words like "burger" and "hotdog" would only be allowed for products from slaughtered livestock. Proponents argue that the law is needed to avoid confusing consumers ̵[ads1]1; but given that the term "veggie burger" has not been particularly confusing to consumers all the time, it certainly seems like an attempt to keep alternatives to meat away from buyers. [19659006] "The plant-based meat category is on fire right now, with consumers demanding healthier and more sustainable alternatives," said Michele Simon, CEO of the Plant-Based Foods Association, in a statement. "This law, along with similar laws in several other states, is the meatloaf's answer."

Recorders of meat alternatives sue. In a lawsuit filed on July 2, they claim that since their products are already labeled "vegan", consumers are not confused. If anything, the requirement that they avoid product descriptions such as the "veggie burger" makes things more confusing.

"There is no evidence that consumers are confused by plant-based bacon or veggie burger labels, and federal laws are already in place that prohibits criminal charges," said Jessica Almy, police chief of the Good Food Institute, an organization that is expanding access. "This law is a huge assault on state forces."

And that's not the only problem Food scientists are currently working on cell-based meat products, which are identical to meat from animals, but grown from stem cells in a factory "These products (which are not yet on the market) are meat in all relevant respects – most importantly, anyone who has an allergy to meat will experience an allergic reaction to the products, and the items must be stored, cooled and handled as meat. But under the Mississippi & # 39 ; current law, it would be illegal to reveal it on the label.

This legal battle applies. Abroad around the country, and the courts will soon discuss whether they are constitutional. At the same time, federal regulators look to states for signals of labeling laws for plant-based meat. Aggressive prohibitions can reduce the growth of plant-based alternatives, which is very necessary.

The plant-based meat influence is here

"This bill will protect our cattle farmers from having to compete with products that have not been harvested from an animal, said Miss McCippick of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation in January when the bill went into the Mississippi State House.

The Mississippi is not the first state to consider this, Missouri passed the first such label last year, and it was challenged by the court of groups, including the Good Food Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that such a " content-based, overblown and vague "limitation on language companies could use to describe their products, were constitutional. lawsuits are now in negotiation talks.

Dozens of other states have considered similar laws since then. The laws are popular among farmers and ranchers who see its business model threatened by the rising popularity of plant-based meat.

That setback may seem too early. Ante-based meat is growing in popularity, all plant-based meat products still show only a small part of the demand for meat. And plant-based alternatives do not yet change the meat industry: The demand for meat actually increased last year.

But plant-based meat advocates hope – and sellers of conventional meat-free – once, it can change. A more climate-conscious population is increasingly plagued by carbon footprints and agricultural problems associated with conventional meat production, and economies of scale can allow plant-based meat alternatives to be more competitive on price. While that day is far away and still quite speculative, the opportunity has clearly encouraged lobbyists to act.

The speech argument

But is that act constitutional? Earlier court decisions indicate that it cannot be.

Federal laws prohibit labeling food in ways that are misleading to consumers. You cannot call a product gluten-free if it is not, of course, or call it "olive oil" if it is not made from olives. When the laws have tried to push it out, they have generally met a skeptical audience in the courts.

In a case in California, the courts ruled that a requirement that terms such as "soy milk" and "almond milk" would confuse consumers was nonsense. "The criticism of the claims is that a reasonable consumer can confuse plant-based drinks such as soymilk or almond milk for milk milk, due to the use of the word" milk ", the US District Court wrote for the Northern District of California, dismissing the case." The claim extends beyond the limits of the law . Under the plaintiff's logic, a reasonable consumer may also believe that veggie bacon contains pork, the flourless chocolate cake contains flour, or the e-books are made of paper. "

A Florida case dealt with direct rights as they apply to food labels. Foam milk is routinely controlled by vitamin A (which prevents blindness and which is removed in the skimming process.) A law in Florida prohibited milk and milk product manufacturers from selling their products. if vitamin A was omitted and requires that milk without added vitamin A be called "imitation skimmed milk." A small Florida dairy farmer sued and claimed that their product was skimmed milk and that they should have the right to label it that way.

Is it even more sensible to say that a creamery or Tofurky producer is entitled to freedom of expression? The answer is yes. The first change can be used for commercial speech – even though the law is somewhat complicated. The Supreme Court unanimously stated that there was no first change protection for purely commercial speech.In the 1970s, the court had reassessed it and overturned it in 1976.

In 1980, The Court of First Instance introduced the rules for first-time commercial protection change that are still in use today. These rules are called the "Central Hudson" test because they were posted in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company of the Public Service Commission of New York .

Here are the rules: First, commercial speech "People must have legal activity and not be misleading." Supporters of the Mississippi Law can claim that the term "plant-based burger" is misleading, while the opponents claim that consumers know perfectly well what a veggie burger is.

"There is nothing misleading about the name of a veggie burger, or vegan hot dog or seitan bacon," Almy, a lawyer in the Missouri case, told me. "The package clearly reveals that this is plant-based food that has the taste or text of this known food."

Although speech refers to legal activity and is not misleading, the government can still regulate it . But it must meet the following standards: The government must have a "substantial interest" at stake, the regulation must "directly and materially promote the government's great interest" and "regulation must be tailored."

There is a strong case that prohibits the "veggie burger" and "tofu sausage" labels do not meet this standard. "There is considerable evidence that the motivation for this law is to protect the cattle farmers from competition," Almy told me. It would not be considered a significant state interest, and prohibitions not only words such as "beef" and "swine", but also those who "burger" and "sausage" pose a risk to the conclusion that the law is not narrowly tailored. "There are many ways to make sure consumers are clear about what they buy without banning whole word categories," Almy pointed out.

If the Mississippi law is found constitutional, it will be good news for consumers. There is no sign that they are being fooled by the increasing prominence of plant-based burgers. If anything, they often seem to be looking for them.

Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week I will get an overview of ideas and solutions to tackle our biggest challenges: better public health, reducing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic dangers and – to put it simply – better to do well .