Meat Labeling Law

This issue tracker focuses on federal and state statutes, regulations and litigation regarding labeling of meat, poultry and fish products, including cell-cultured and bio-engineered products.  Our goal is to provide a comprehensive listing of statutes and regulations, but the litigation covered is not exhaustive and focuses on issues receiving national attention. This issue tracker covers the period from 2018 to present.

***

A. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

6.14.2023 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced in a press release that the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will take actions to verify animal-raising claims, such as “raised without antibiotics,” “grass-fed,” and “free-range.” As part of these efforts, the agencies will initiate a sampling project to assess the presence of antibiotic residues in cattle designated as “raised without antibiotics.” Additionally, FSIS will issue guidance strongly recommending the use of third-party certification to substantiate animal-raising claims. USDA emphasized that the results obtained from the sampling project will guide future actions, including the potential requirement of laboratory testing results for the “raised without antibiotics” claim or the establishment of a new verification sampling program.  

3.13.23 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register, titled “Voluntary Labeling of FSIS-Regulated Products With U.S.-Origin Claims.” USDA also announced that the proposed rule would amend requirements for products bearing the “Product of USA” label for meat, poultry, and egg products along with other voluntarily inspected products. Under the proposed rule, these products must be derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States to bear the “Product of USA” label. The comment period of this proposed rule will close on May 12, 2023. 

1.19.23 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published a final rule in the Federal Register, titled “Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE).” AMS also announced that the rule amends several sections of the National Organic Program (NOP) to ensure standards consistent with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) are in place throughout the production, handling, certification, marketing, and sale of organic agricultural products. The NOP amendments follow industry requests for updates, recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and mandates from the 2018 Farm Bill. 

12.20.22 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published in the Federal Register a final rule, titled “Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling Regulations.” The rule sets January 1, 2026, as the standard date for compliance with the new meat and poultry product labeling regulations that are released between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2024. 

12.20.22 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) announced that it registered the USDA organic seal with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. While the USDA organic seal is already statutorily protected by the Organic Foods Protection Act (OFPA), this move allows the USDA greater access to civil remedies to address fraud and food product mislabeling. More information on the USDA’s organic seal can be found here. 

9.29.22 – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule amending the definition of “healthy” for food product labels to be consistent with the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which advises individuals to meet their nutritional needs by consuming “a variety of nutrient-dense foods” – as opposed to consuming a defined quantity of nutrients (87 FR 59168). Also announced by FDA, the proposed rule updates “healthy” to require that foods bearing the claim provide a minimum amount of food (“food group equivalent”) from a recommended food group or subgroup from the guidelines: vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, proteins, or oils. This update represents a departure from the nutrient-specific approach of the current regulation, which FDA suspects may “spur fortification to allow foods that are low in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars to qualify for the ‘healthy’ claim, despite these foods not contributing to a meaningful amount of a food group” such as “white bread fortified with calcium.” FDA seeks comment on multiple parts of the proposed rule and encourages stakeholders to provide feedback during the 90-day comment period, which closes December 28, 2022.

8.17.22 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published a final rule in the Federal Register, titled “Rescission of Dual Labeling Requirements for Certain Packages of Meat and Poultry.” This rule revokes the requirements for meat and poultry packages weighing between one pound or one pint and four pounds or one gallon to display the net weight or net contents in two different units of measurement on the product label. 

6.27.22 – The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a petition for rulemaking with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) requesting that FSIS begin rulemaking procedures to eliminate from its label-approval process any labeling regarding animal handling or confinement conditions in animal production because FSIS has no jurisdiction to regulate those practices and cannot inspect for compliance. 

9.3.21 – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) posted an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, titled “Labeling of Meat or Poultry Products Comprised of or Containing Cultured Animal Cells” (86 FR 49491). Through the ANPR, FSIS seeks comment on issues it should consider in developing regulatory labeling requirements for cell-cultured meat and poultry. Specifically, FSIS seeks comment on consumer labeling expectations regarding nutrition and the taste, color, odor, and texture of cell-cultured products; accurate, unambiguous product names; research regarding cell-cultured labeling nomenclature; and economic data on cell-cultured meat products. USDA also announced that this ANPR follows the Mar. 2019 agreement between USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to jointly supervise and regulate cell-cultured food production. The 60-day comment period closes Nov. 2, 2021. 

12.16.20 – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued in the Federal Register a final rule titled “Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling Regulations.” According to the new rule, “All meat and poultry food products that are subject to labeling regulations issued between January 1, 2021 and December 21, 2022, will be required to comply with these regulations on products introduced into commerce on or after January 1, 2024.”

9.14.20 – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued in the Federal Register a proposed rule titled “Prior Label Approval System: Expansion of Generic Label Approval.” The rule proposed to amend FSIS prior label approval system and expand the circumstances under which FSIS will generically approve the labels of meat, poultry and egg products. 

12.30.19 – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued an updated version of a compliance guideline titled “Updated Labeling Guideline on Statements That Bioengineered or Genetically Modified Ingredients or Animal Feed Were Not Used in the Production of Meat, Poultry, or Egg Products.”

12.27.19 – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued an updated version of a compliance guideline titled “Food Safety and Inspection Service Labeling Guideline on Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label Submissions.”

4.17.19 – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule titled “Rescission of Dual Labeling Requirements for Certain Packages of Meat and Poultry.”

3.8.19 – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published a best practices guideline on the handling of consumer complaints over deceptive meat marketing practices.

B. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

7.14.21 – The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published in the Federal Register a final rule titled Made in USA Labeling Rule, which codifies that product packaging and online labels may not identify a product as “Made in USA” unless: “1) final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States; 2) all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States; and 3) all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States.” The rule allows the FTC to charge civil penalties of up to $43,280 per violation. The rule will become effective on Aug. 13, 2021. 

7.16.20 – The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule, entitled “Made in USA Labeling Rule.” The new proposed rule makes a “Made in the United States” (MUSA) labeling statement an unfair or deceptive act or practice unless virtually all ingredients are made/sourced in the United State, all significant processing occurs in the United States and the final assembly of the product occurs in the United States. 

In Re: Beyond Meat, Inc., Protein Content Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
USDC N.D. Illinois, No. 1:23-cv-669

2.1.23 – The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) issued a transfer order consolidating in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois five cases alleging false advertising claims against Beyond Meat, Inc., which manufactures plant-based meat substitute products. According to the transfer order, the plaintiffs claim that Beyond Meat “(1) miscalculates and overstates its products’ protein content; (2) miscalculates and overstates the quality of the products’ protein, which is represented as a percentage of daily value; and (3) misleads consumers into believing that the products provide the same nutritional benefits as traditional meat products.” The consolidated cases are:
– Roberts v. Beyond Meat, Inc., N.D. Illinois, No. 1:22-cv-2861
– Cascio v. Beyond Meat, Inc., E.D. New York, No. 2:22-cv-4018
– Miller v. Beyond Meat, Inc., S.D. New York, No. 1:22-cv-6336
– Garcia v. Beyond Meat, Inc., S.D. Iowa, No. 4:22-cv-297
– Borovoy v. Beyond Meat, Inc., N.D. Illinois, No. 1:22-cv-6302

Arkansas

Turtle Island Foods SCP v. Soman [Case closed]
USDC E.D. Arkansas, No. 4:19-cv-514

7.22.19 – Turtle Island Foods, SCP filed a lawsuit against Arkansas challenging the state-recently enacted labeling law prohibiting the use of meat terms to describe plant-based meat products.

8.14.19 – Plaintiff sought federal court to temporarily enjoin the state of Arkansas from enforcing law that prohibits plant-based meat products to be advertised as meat based on the First Amendment and commercial speech.

12.11.19 – Judgment entered granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, preventing the state of Arkansas from enforcing portions of Act 501 – also known as “Truth in Labeling of Agricultural Products that are Edible by Humans.”

4.15.20 – Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.

9.23.20 – Plaintiffs and defendant filed a joint motion to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits and proceed with the entry of a final order and judgment. 

12.15.20 – Order entered granting joint to motion to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits and directing Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief addressing the additional relief it is seeking pursuant to the amended complaint.

1.29.21 – Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of its request for facial declaratory and injunctive relief.

9.30.22 – The U.S. District Court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff Turtle Island Foods SPC d/b/a Tofurky Company and enjoined Defendant Nikhil Soman from enforcing Arkansas Code § 2-1-305(10), § 2-1-305(6), (8), (9), and § 2-1-305(2) and (5). 

California

Friends of the Earth et al. v. Sanderson Farms, Inc. [Case closed]
USDC N.D. California, No. 3:17-cv-03592
Ninth Circuit, No. 19-16696

6.22.17 – Friends of the Earth and the Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit against Sanderson Farms, alleging that the company falsely marketed their chicken as “100% natural” while containing traces of chemicals and synthetic drugs.

7.31.19 – Judgment entered dismissing without prejudice the lawsuit against Sanderson Farms.

8.30.19 – Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case. 

1.8.20 – Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their opening brief.

Note: Oral arguments were scheduled on Oct. 13, 2020 in San Francisco, CA. 

3.31.21 – The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case for lack of organizational standing. 

4.22.21 – The U.S. Court of Appeals issued a mandate. 

Mississippi

Upton’s Naturals Co. et al. v. Bryant [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Mississippi, No. 3:19-cv-00462

7.1.19 – Upton’s Naturals Co. and The Plant Based Foods Association challenged a statewide ban prohibiting the use of meat terminology for the labeling of plant-based food products.

11.7.19 – Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal withdrawing their claims against Mississippi state.

1.13.21 – The U.S. District Court approved the motion and ordered dismissal of the case. 

Missouri

Turtle Island Foods, SCP et al. v. Richardson [Case closed]
USDC W.D. Missouri, No. 2:18-cv-04173
Eighth Circuit, No. 19-3154, 19-8019

8.27.18 – Turtle Island Foods, SCP and the Good Food Institute filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri challenging Missouri regulations, Rev. Stat. § 265.494(7) as amended by 2018 Senate Bills 627 & 925, prohibiting the use of meat terminology for plant-based and cell-cultured meat products. According to plaintiffs, the statute imposed a content-based restriction on their commercial speech.

10.30.18 – Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the recently adopted regulations, Rev. Stat §  265.494(7), prohibiting the use of meat terminology for meat products not coming directly from an animal. 

11.29.18 – Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a certification of a defendant class of all Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys. 

2.14.19 – Plaintiffs and Defendant filed a joint motion to stay pending completion of settlement negotiations. 

9.30.19 – Judgment entered granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification; denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction; denying as moot Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s joint motion to stay. As regards to the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court found that the statute does not apply to Tofurky’s speech because the company’s product labeling conforms with guidance from the Missouri Department of Agriculture and “clearly indicate[s] that the products do not contain meat from slaughtered animals” and “clearly label[s]” the products “as plant based, vegan, or vegetarian.” 

10.2.19 – Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit seeking to overturn the District Court’s decision to deny their motion for a preliminary injunction. 

10.8.19 – Plaintiffs filed a joint motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the appeal to the Eighth Circuit. 

12.11.19 – Judgment entered denying Plaintiffs’ permission to appeal.

2.11.20 – Order entered denying as moot Plaintiffs’ joint motion to stay proceedings pending appeal following the Court of Appeal’s order denying Plaintiffs permission for leave to appeal. 

3.29.21 – The U.S. Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the district court’s denial of an injunction against Missouri’s meat labeling law (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 265.494(7)). The Court of Appeals upheld the district’s court determination that the statute did not prohibit Tofurky’s commercial speech and as such, the company had failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

4.19.21 – The U.S. Court of Appeals issued a mandate.

New Mexico

Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. [Case closed]
USDC New Mexico, No. 1:20-cv-105
Tenth Circuit, No. 20-2124
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 21-1604

2.5.20 – The U.S. District Court issued a Notice removing case Robin G. Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc, et al.) from the Second Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico, Case No. D-202-cv-2020-00109.

8.27.20 – The U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order dismissing a pair of consolidated class action lawsuits alleging deception beef labeling by Tyson Foods, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., JBS USA Food Company, and National Beef Packing Company, LLC. Both suits sought injunctions and damages asserting the Defendants are misleading retailers and consumers by labeling their beef “Product of the USA,” when in fact the cattle are raised in foreign countries, imported into the United States live, then slaughtered and processed in the United States. The court stated that the labels were approved by, and consistent with, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulations, which in fact allow “Product of USA” labeling on meat products made from animals imported into the U.S. but processed in the United States. Plaintiffs Robin Thornton and Michael Lucero filed an appeal against this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 

11.30.20 – Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their opening brief.

2.16.21 – Defendants-Appellees Tyson Foods, Inc. et al. filed their answer to Appellants’ Opening Brief. 

3.11.22 – The Tenth Circuit Court issued an opinion and order affirming the district court’s decision to dismiss the case. The court found that the plaintiffs’ state-law mislabeling claims were expressly preempted by federal law and cited the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service’s (FSIS) policy book. The court noted that FSIS policy states that “a label may bear the phrase ‘Product of the U.S.A.’ if the product is processed in the U.S. (i.e., is of domestic origin)” and that the “Product of the U.S.A.” label “applies to products that, at a minimum, have been prepared in the United States’ and does not ‘mean that the product is derived only from animals that were born, raised, slaughtered, and prepared in the United States’.”

3.15.22 – In response to the Tenth Circuit Court’s dismissal, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the circuit court’s decision conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court case law and is contrary to the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

3.28.22 – The Tenth Circuit Court denied Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc.

6.24.22 – Petitioners Robin Thornton and Michael Lucero filed a petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. Petitioners asked the Court to answer the following question: “Did the Tenth Circuit Majority err in affirming the decision of the District Court that the state law enforcement against false labeling of the beef packers was preempted by federal law?”

10.3.22 – The U.S. Supreme Court denied Petitioners’ petition for writ of certiorari.

Thornton v. The Kroger Company, et al. [Case open]
USDC New Mexico, No. 1:20-cv-1040

10.8.20 – Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint notice of removal from the State of New Mexico Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. In its complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants The Kroger Company and the Albertsons deceptively mislabeled beef from imported cattle as “Product of the U.S.” 

11.13.20 – Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. 

9.30.21 – The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants. The court found that the class action plaintiffs’ state law claims were adequate and not precluded by federal law, the Dormant Commerce Clause, or collateral estoppel, and that the plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a plausible claim for relief. The court, however, ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to “include[] clear, high resolution pictures” showing which stores “circulated each advertisement, where, and when, and whether . . . class members purchased that meat, and on what date.”

11.10.21 – Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the court to prevent Defendants from using “any sort of promotional sticker in advertisements or on packages of beef,” leading consumers to believe that they are buying products coming from cattle born and raised the United States. 

2.17.22 – The U.S. District Court issued a memorandum opinion, granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the Plaintiff’s New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment claims, and denied in part as to Defendant’s claims based on the “USDA Choice/Produced in the USA” graphic. The U.S. District Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. 

10.17.22 – Plaintiff Robin G. Thornton filed a motion to certify (1) a class under the NMUPA comprising all New Mexico consumers and (2) an unjust enrichment class consisting of individuals who were deceived by false advertising into believing that the beef, including ground beef, they purchased originated from cattle born and raised in the USA. Simultaneously, Plaintiff Wendy Irby filed a motion to certify (1) a class under the NMUPA comprising all New Mexico consumers and (2) an unjust enrichment class consisting of individuals in the four other states where Pay and Save, Inc. operates stores. This class was deceived by false advertising, leading them to rely on the belief that the beef they purchased, including ground beef, originated from cattle born and raised in the USA. 

4.10.23 – Plaintiff Robin G. Thornton submitted a closing brief in support of the motion to certify a class, along with proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law. The New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA) provides a class action remedy for false advertising. Plaintiff defined the relevant class as “[New Mexico] consumers that purchased beef a percentage of which was foreign sourced from Defendants from October of 2018 to November of 2021.” He argued that this group of consumers was deceived by Kroger into buying foreign-sourced beef, which was advertised with a “red, white, and blue color scheme” and the misleading phrase “Produced in USA.”  

4.10.23 – Plaintiff Wendy Irby submitted a closing brief in favor of certifying a class, accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law. Plaintiff similarly sought to define a class for the purpose of pursuing a false advertising claim. The defined class consists of New Mexico consumers who purchased foreign-sourced beef from Pay and Save from May 2018 to December 2021. Plaintiff argued that this group of consumers was deceived by Pay and Save’s advertising materials, which featured the phrase “All American” beef, leading them to unknowingly purchase foreign-sourced beef.

4.10.23 – Defendant the Kroger Company filed a closing brief opposing the certification of Plaintiff Thornton’s class. Kroger argued that there are no viable methods to verify the quantity of foreign-sourced beef purchased by consumers. Furthermore, Kroger contended that it is impractical to determine the extent to which class members relied on the advertisements when making their purchases. Lastly, defendant argued that the damages suffered by the class cannot be accurately measured due to the inherent difficulty in quantifying the amount of foreign-sourced beef purchased.

4.10.23 – Defendant Pay and Save, Inc. filed a closing brief opposing the certification of Plaintiff Wendy Irby’s class. Defendant argued that it is not possible to objectively determine who specifically viewed the “Truly Texas” advertisement and were subsequently misled into purchasing Defendant’s beef. Furthermore, the defendant suggested that the nature of the case is better suited for alternative remedies, particularly ones that can address the unique questions that will arise on an individual basis.  

Oklahoma

Plant Based Foods Association, et al. v. Stitt, et al.
USDC W.D. Oklahoma, No. 5:20-cv-938 [Case reopened]
Tenth Circuit, No. 20-6184 [Case closed]

9.16.20 – Upton’s Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Foods Association filed a complaint against Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt and Oklahoma Commissioner of Agriculture Blayne Arthur, seeking an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the Meat Consumer Protection Act. This law imposes restrictions on the use of meat-related terminology to describe plant-based food products, requiring a disclaimer on such products stating their plant-based nature. The disclaimer must be displayed with letters of equal size and prominence as the product name. Plaintiffs argued that the law constitutes a content-based regulation of speech.

9.16.20 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the court to prevent the enforcement of the Meat Consumer Protection Act on First Amendment grounds until the case is fully resolved. 

11.19.20 – The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, determining that the requirement for a disclaimer serves a legitimate and reasonable purpose in ensuring transparency and avoiding potential misunderstandings among consumers. 

11.23.20 – Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit seeking to overturn the U.S. District Court’s order, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction.

12.11.20 – Following plaintiffs’ appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court filed on November 23, 2020, the U.S. District Court issued an order staying the proceedings. The court reasoned that plaintiffs’ use of terms such as burger, bacon, chorizo, hot dog, jerky, meatballs, and steak on their plant-based products had the potential to mislead a reasonable consumer. As a result, the court found it appropriate to halt the proceedings and await the outcome of appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court.

6.3.21 – Appellees Upton’s Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Foods Association submitted a notice of voluntary dismissal regarding their appeal of the U.S. District Court’s order, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. The Tenth Circuit Court granted their request for dismissal and subsequently issued a mandate to the U.S. District Court on the same day. 

6.9.21 – The U.S. District Court issued an order to reopen the case for further proceedings.

11.9.21 – Plaintiffs Turtle Island Foods SCP and the Plant Based Foods Association filed an amended complaint setting forth entirely new constitutional challenges to Oklahoma’s Meat Consumer Protection Act. This time, they alleged that the law violates the dormant Commerce Clause due to its imposition of varying labeling standards among states. Additionally, they alleged violations of the Due Process and Supremacy Clauses, citing vague standards and potential federal preemption conflicts. A trial date has been scheduled for September 13, 2022, indicating that the case will proceed to litigation.

10.7.22 – Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plant Based Foods Association as a plaintiff in the case. They argued that the association lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and failed to establish a case and controversy as required under Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

11.15.22 – The U.S. District Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plant-Based Foods Association as a plaintiff in the case. 

2.17.23 – Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to the Oklahoma Meat Consumer Protection Act lack legal merit.

5.30.23 – Plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment, accompanied by a supporting memorandum, asserting that the Oklahoma Meat Consumer Protection Act is in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They argued that the law is both preempted and unconstitutionally vague.

On September 21, 2023, the court directed plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief before or on October 5, 2023, addressing whether the Oklahoma Act applies to plaintiffs and the traceability of and redressability requirements of standing.

10.5.23 – Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental brief addressing their standing to challenge the Meat Consumer Protection Act. The Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) asserted organizational and associational standing, demonstrating that their injuries directly stem from the Act and can be redressed through judicial intervention. Additionally, Tofurky, a PBFA member, claimed individual standing for all claims.

The court rescheduled the bench trial to May 14, 2024, with trial briefs due on March 14, 2024.  

Texas

Turtle Island Foods v. Abbott [Case open]
USDC W.D. Texas, No. 1:23-cv-1032

8.31.23 – The Tofurky Company filed a complaint against Texas Governor Greg Abbott, challenging the constitutionality of a new Texas law (An Act relating to the labeling of analogue and cell-cultured products, codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 431.082 (as amended); §§ 431.0805, 433.0415), which imposes additional labeling rules for plant-based and cell-cultured products. Tofurky argues that these rules are unnecessary and violate the Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, First Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Specifically,Tofurky alleges that “there is no evidence that consumers are confused by plant-based meat producers’ marketing, packaging, or naming conventions,” and that federal courts have found such confusion to be “highly improbable.”

Arkansas

2.7.19 – State Senators David Hillman (R) and Bruce Maloch (D) introduced in the House Bill 1407, entitled To Require Truth in Labeling of Agricultural Products that are Edible by Humans. The Bill would prohibit the labeling of cell-cultured, plant-based or insect-based food products as meat.

3.18.19 – Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed HB 1407 into law – now Act 501.

3.23.21 – Arkansas adopted HB 1315–now Act 418–authorizing the state Secretary of Agriculture to mandate additional labeling information for livestock carcasses or meat food products as they depart facilities or during their transportation or sale within the state of Arkansas. 

Kansas

5.5.22 – Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed into law SB 261, informally named the “Fake Meat Labeling Bill,” requiring, among other things, that as of July 1, 2022, alternative meat products sold in Kansas using meat terms will be considered misbranded if without a disclaimer that the product does not contain meat in a prominent and conspicuous font size in close proximity to the meat term. Disclaimers can include vegetarian, vegan, meatless, meat-free, plant-based or other terms approved by the Kansas Secretary of Agriculture. 

Kentucky

3.21.19 – Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed into law HB 311 – An Act relating to cultured animal tissue. The new legislation amends Kentucky Revised Statutes § 237.035 and adds that a food made of “cultured animal tissue produced from in vitro animal cell cultures outside of the organism from which it is derived” cannot be labeled as meat or a meat product. The legislation became effective on June 27, 2019.

Mississippi

1.21.19 – State Senator Billy Hudson (R) introduced in the Senate Bill 2922, prohibiting the labeling of cell-cultured, plant-based or insect-based food products using meat terms.

3.12.19 – Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed SB 2922 into law, which will become effective on July 1, 2019.

Missouri

1.3.18 – State Senator Brian Munzlinger introduced in the Senate Bill 627, prohibiting the making of false or misleading representations of “a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.”

6.1.18 – Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB 627 into law, which will become effective on August 28, 2018.

Montana

4.18.19 – Montana Governor Steve Bullock signed H.B. 327 into law defining cell-cultured edible products, defining hamburger and ground beef, and clarifying when meat is mislabeled. The legislation defines a cell-cultured edible product as a “concept of meat” that is produced from a cell culture and not from a whole slaughtered animal. Additionally, hamburger and beef are defined as being derived from the edible flesh of livestock or a livestock product and does not include cell-cultured edible products. Finally, any cell-cultured edible product labeled as meat is mislabeled if it does not meet the definition of meat.

North Dakota

1.11.19 – State Senators and Representatives introduced in the House Bill 1400, which would disallow the deceptive packaging and labeling of cell-cultured food products as meat.

3.12.19 – North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed HB 1400 into law. 

Oklahoma

4.26.19 – Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed into law S.B. 392 that prohibits the deceptive advertising or selling of mislabeled meat products. Under the law, the term “meat” is restricted to “any edible portion of livestock, poultry or captive cervid carcass or part thereof.”

5.19.20 – Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt approved H.B. 3806, titled the “Oklahoma Meat Consumer Protection Act” and passed by both chambers of the Oklahoma State Legislature on May 13, 2020. The Act defines meat as “any edible portion of livestock or part thereof,” and simply declares it to be misrepresentation to represent “a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock.” However, packaging shall not be in violation if the “packaging displays that the product is derived from plant-based sources in type that is uniform in size and prominence to the name of the product.” The law becomes effective November 1, 2020.

South Carolina

5.16.19 – South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed into law H. 4245 – now Act No. 79 – amending the Code of Laws of South Carolina and addingArticle 5to Chapter 17, Title 47. The law makes it unlawful for one person to advertise, sell, label or misrepresent as “meat” or “clean meat” all or part of an animal carcass that is cell-cultured meat/protein, or is not derived from harvested production livestock, poultry, fish, or crustaceans. If the person violates the law, he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor and may face up to one year of imprisonment or fine up to $1,000, or both.

South Dakota

1.23.19 – State Senators and Representatives introduced in the Senate Bill 68, which prohibits the making of false or misleading representations relating to a meat or poultry food product as defined under Codified Laws § 39-5-6.

3.29.19 – South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed Senate Bill 68 into law, An Act to define certain acts as misbranding of food products.

Texas

5.15.23 – Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law S.B. 664, which amends the state’s Health and Safety Code to include new definitions and regulations for labeling “cell-cultured” and “analogue,” or plant-based food products. The law defines an “analogue” product as “a food product derived by combining plant products, insects, or fungus with food additives to approximate the texture, flavor, appearance, or other aesthetic qualities” of animal products and a “cell-cultured” product as “a food product derived by harvesting animal cells and artificially replicating those cells in a growth medium in laboratory to produce tissue.” The amendment requires that analogue and cell-cultured products be clearly labeled near the product name “in prominent type equal to or greater in size than the surrounding type” with terms like “analogue,” “meatless,” “plant-based,” “cell-cultured,” or “lab-grown.” Under the new law, products that fail to adhere to the labeling specifications are categorized as “misbranded.” The legislation is set to become effective on September 1, 2023.

Wyoming

1.10.19 – State Senator Wyatt Agar (R) introduced in the Senate Bill 68, prohibiting the use of meat terminology for the labeling, advertising and selling of cell-cultured and plant-based food products. The Bill would require that cell-cultured products be labeled as “containing cell cultured products” and plant-based products be labeled as “vegetarian,” “veggie,” “vegan,” “plant based” or any other similar terms.

2.26.19 – Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed Senate Bill 68 into law. The Bill will become effective on July 1, 2020.

A. Mississippi

11.6.19 – Mississippi adopted a set of regulations allowing food companies to label their plant-based and insect-based food products using meat terminology.

9.5.19 – The Mississippi Dept. of Agriculture and Commerce introduced regulations authorizing vegetarian and vegan food companies to use meat terminology for the labeling of their plant-based, insect-based, or lab-grown food products, provided that they use appropriate qualifiers on their package, e.g. “meat free,” “veggie-based,” etc.

B. Missouri

8.30.18 – The Missouri Dept. of Agriculture released guidance on the new changes to the Missouri Meat Advertising Law.

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, et al. v. Zeise
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, No. 34-2020-80003354-CU-WM-GD

3.11.20 – The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine filed a legal action seeking to compel “processed meats” to be added to the so-called Proposition 65 list of those chemicals or substances known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Such a listing triggers a duty to provide a warning to consumers with a printed label on products containing them. This lawsuit was filed in response to the 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of processed meats as carcinogenic and the 2018 IARC official evaluation of Red Meat and Processed Meat Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 

5.28.21 – The Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento issued a decision denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and ordering that the case proceed. California argued that there can be no duty to list “processed meats” because they are not a single chemical or single substance. The court disagreed because California has added to the Proposition 65 list similar items such as “alcoholic beverages,” “salted fish-Chinese style,” and “wood dust.”