Meat Labeling Law – Center for Agricultural and Shale Law

All Issue Trackers

Scope

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.

While the Center for Agricultural and Shale Law makes every effort to maintain and update the content furnished in this tracker, no warranty or other guarantee is made regarding the timeliness and accuracy of any information provided. If you spot incorrect or missing information, feel free to contact us.

Federal Legislative and Regulatory Actions

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

1.6.25 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued draft guidance on the labeling of plant-based meat, seafood, and dairy products, requiring that these items must be clearly distinguishable from the traditional products they imitate. The guidance recommends that labels identify both the plant-based nature of the product and the main plant ingredient, using clear, descriptive terms in a noticeable font on the front of the packaging. It also indicates that while meat-related images or flavor descriptions may be used, they should not mislead consumers.

12.4.24 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug Administration published in the Federal Register a notice requesting public comment on food date labeling, including terms such as “Sell By,” “Use By,” and “Best By.” The notice clarifies that while the agencies recommend using the terms “Best if Used By,” federal regulations currently do not prevent the use of other date labels, such as “Sell By” or “Use By,” as long as they are accurate and not deceptive. It also acknowledges that the diverse range of food products, along with varying environmental, storage, and distribution conditions, present challenges to standardize food safety or quality date labels. Furthermore, the FDA announced that the agencies are seeking information regarding industry practices and preferences for date labeling, consumer understanding of date labels, and research on food waste and loss. The public comment period ended on February 3, 2025.

11.27.24 – 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 2, 2028, as the uniform compliance date for all new meat and poultry regulations issued between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2026.

5.17.24 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published in the Federal Register a final rule, titled Voluntary Labeling of FSIS-Regulated Products with U.S.-Origin Claims (89 FR 19470). This rule amended 9 CFR § 317, 381 and 412 to “generically approve” the use of the voluntary labels “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” on meat, poultry, and egg products. These labels can be used solely when these products are derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. The rule also allows these label claims on multi-ingredient FSIS-regulated products provided that (1) all FSIS-regulated products in the multi-ingredient product originate from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States; (2) all other ingredients, except spices and flavorings, are sourced domestically; and (3) the preparation and processing of the multi-ingredient product occur in the United States. The rule came into effect upon its publication date. Establishments voluntarily using such claims must comply with the new regulation by January 1, 2026, and are encouraged to do so early upon publication.

6.14.23 – 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.

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.

Federal Litigation

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’s recently enacted Act 501–a labeling law that prohibits the use of meat-related terms to describe plant-based meat products.

Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to temporarily prevent the state of Arkansas from enforcing Act 501 (8.14.19)
The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (12.11.19)
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (4.15.20)
Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of its request for facial declaratory and injunctive relief (1.29.21)

9.30.22 – The federal district court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff and enjoined defendant 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-3592
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.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing (4.1.19)
The federal district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice (7.31.19)
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 (8.30.19)
Plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief (1.8.20)

3.31.21 – The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case for lack of organizational standing (3.31.21)

Mississippi

Upton’s Naturals Co. et al. v. Bryant [Case closed]
USDC S.D. Mississippi, No. 3:19-cv-462

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

Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal withdrawing their claims against the state (11.7.19)

1.13.21 – The U.S. District Court ordered the case to be dismissed.

Missouri

Turtle Island Foods, SCP et al. v. Richardson [Case closed]
USDC W.D. Missouri, No. 2:18-cv-4173
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 the state’s regulations, Rev. Stat. § 265.494(7) as amended by 2018 Senate Bills 627 & 925, which prohibit the use of meat-related terminology for plant-based and cell-cultured meat products. The plaintiffs argued that the statute imposes a content-based restriction on their commercial speech.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction (10.30.18)
Plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion to stay the case pending completion of settlement negotiations (2.14.19)

9.30.19 – The federal district court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and dismissing as moot the joint motion by both parties to stay the case. 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.”

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 preliminary injunction (10.2.19)

3.29.21 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued an opinion affirming the district court’s denial of an injunction against Missouri’s meat labeling law. The court upheld the district court’s finding that the statute did not restrict Tofurky’s commercial speech and, therefore, the company failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

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 and order dismissing a pair of consolidated class action lawsuits alleging deceptive beef labeling by Tyson Foods, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., JBS USA Food Company, and National Beef Packing Company, LLC. The lawsuits sought injunctions and damages, arguing that the defendants misled retailers and consumers by labeling their beef “Product of the USA,” despite the cattle being raised in foreign countries, imported live into the United States, then slaughtered and processed domestically. The court stated that the labels were approved by, and consistent with, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulations, which allow “Product of USA” labeling for meat products derived from animals imported into the U.S. but processed in the United States.

Plaintiffs Robin Thornton and Michael Lucero appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (8.7.20)
Plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief (11.30.20)
Defendants-appellees filed their reply brief (2.16.21)

3.11.22 – The Tenth Circuit Court issued an opinion and order affirming the district court’s dismissal of the case. The court held that the plaintiffs’ state-law mislabeling claims were expressly preempted by federal law and referenced the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) policy book. It noted that FSIS policy allows a product to bear the label “Product of the U.S.A.” if it has been processed in the United States, even if the animals were not exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered there. The court emphasized that the label applies to products that, at a minimum, have been prepared in the U.S. and does not require them to be derived solely from domestically raised animals.

Plaintiffs-appellants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the circuit court’s decision conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and misinterprets the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (3.15.22)
The Tenth Circuit Court denied appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc (3.28.22)

6.24.22 – Petitioners Robin Thornton and Michael Lucero filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to address the following question: “Did the Tenth Circuit 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?”

The U.S. Supreme Court denied petitioners’ petition for writ of certiorari (10.3.22)

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

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

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice (11.13.20)
The federal district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the case (9.30.21)
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 (11.10.21)

2.17.22 – The federal district court issued a memorandum opinion, granting in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiff’s claims under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the motion in part regarding the defendants’ claims involving the “USDA Choice/Produced in the USA” graphic. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

All parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice (2.23.24)
The federal district court entered final judgment dismissing the entire case with prejudice (4.5.24)

Oklahoma

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

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. The plaintiffs argued that the law constitutes a content-based regulation of speech.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction (9.16.20)
The federal 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 (11.19.20)
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 (11.23.20)

12.11.20 – Following plaintiffs’ appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court, the federal 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.

Plaintiff-appellants filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their appeal (6.3.21)

6.3.21 – The Tenth Circuit Court granted the plaintiff-appellants’ request for dismissal.

The federal district court issued an order to reopen the case for further proceedings (6.9.21)

11.9.21 – Plaintiffs 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.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (2.17.23)
Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment along with a supporting memorandum (5.30.23)
Plaintiff 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 (10.5.23)

6.24.24 – The federal district court issued an order dismissing the case without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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 titled “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. This law imposes additional labeling requirements for plant-based and cell-cultured products. Tofurky contended that these regulations are unnecessary and violate several constitutional provisions, including the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Tofurky argued that “there is no evidence that consumers are confused by plant-based meat producers’ marketing, packaging, or naming conventions,” and noted that federal courts have found such consumer confusion to be “highly improbable.”

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (10.10.23)
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case in its entirety (11.27.23)

9.23.24 – The federal district court issued an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss Governor Abbott from the case and dismissing the plaintiffs’ alternative declaratory judgment claims without prejudice. The court denied the motion to dismiss other claims, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their preemption, dormant Commerce Clause, Due Process, and First Amendment claims, as well as their request for injunction against the defendants if the amendment is found unconstitutional.

On January 13, 2025, the court approved the parties’ agreed-upon scheduling order, setting the bench trial for January 5, 2026.

State Legislative and Regulatory Actions

Alaska

8.24.24 – Alaska Governor Dunleavy signed into law HB 251, which requires that when a producer provides meat to a person who has an ownership interest in the animal or herd, the producer must include a warning on the meat packaging or a label, clearly stating that the meat has not been inspected (section 17.20.334).

Arkansas

3.18.19 – Arkansas Governor Hutchinson signed into law HB 1407 into law–now Act 501 entitled To Require Truth in Labeling of Agricultural Products that are Edible by Humans. The law prohibits the labeling of cell-cultured, plant-based or insect-based food products as meat.

3.23.21 – The Arkansas General Assembly adopted HB 1315–now Act 418 which authorizes the state Secretary of Agriculture to require 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.

California

9.28.24 – California Governor Newsome signed into law AB 660, banning “sell by” dates on food products for human consumption. Under the law, manufacturers and retailers who are required to label products with a safety date must instead use terms such as “best if used or frozen by” to indicate peak quality, or “use or freeze by” to mark the last safe consumption date. The law includes exceptions for eggs, milk, and baby formula. It will become effective on July 1, 2026, for products manufactured or labeled after that date.

Iowa

5.15.24 – Iowa Governor Reynolds signed into law SF 2391, also known as the Iowa Meat Integrity Act, which provides specific labeling requirements for cultured meat and plant-based meat, and egg products sold in the state. The legislation considers that a food product is misbranded as a meat product if all the following conditions are met: (1) it must be either a manufactured protein food product or contain a manufactured protein food product, (2) it must be offered for sale or sold by a food processing plant, and (3) the label includes an identifying meat term on the package or container. The legislation clarifies that a food product will not be considered mislabeled as a meat product solely due to the presence of a small quantity of plant-based protein ingredients. It further specifies that the label will not be considered misleading if it includes a qualifying term indicating that the product is not real meat. Additionally, the legislation provides that if there is a “reasonable cause” to believe a product is mislabeled, the relevant authority can issue a stop order, preventing the food processing plant from selling the product until it is properly labeled. However, if the investigation confirms that the product is mislabeled, the authority can issue an embargo order. This order requires that the plant dispose of the product and prohibits its sale within the state. The legislation also prohibits schools from purchasing misbranded meat products and “cultivated-protein” food products. The Iowa Department of Health and Services (HHS) may seek an exemption if the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approves “cultivated-protein” and “fabricated-egg” products for purchase under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for low-income individuals and mothers.

Kansas

5.5.22 – Kansas Governor 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 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

3.12.19 – Mississippi Governor Reeves signed into law SB 2922, which prohibits the labeling of cell-cultured, plant-based or insect-based food products using meat terms.

Missouri

6.1.18 – Missouri Governor Greitens signed into law SB 627, which prohibits the making of false or misleading representations of “a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.”

Montana

4.18.19 – Montana Governor Steve Bullock signed into law H.B. 327 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

3.12.19 – North Dakota Governor Burgum signed into law HB 1400, which prohibits the deceptive packaging and labeling of cell-cultured food products as meat.

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.”

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 adding Article 5 to 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

3.18.19 – South Dakota Governor Noem signed into law SB 68, An Act to define certain acts as misbranding of food products, 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.

2.11.25 – South Dakota Governor Rhoden signed into law HB 1022, which prohibits the misbranding of cell-cultured protein products. The new law defines “cell-cultured protein” as a product made wholly or partially from any cell culture or DNA of a host animal, grown, or cultivated outside a live animal for use as human food. Under the law, a product is considered “misbranded” if it contains cell-cultured protein and fails to prominently display the terms “cell-cultured” or “lab-grown” in clear, uniform type next to the product name on the label.

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.”

Utah

3.19.25 – Utah Governor Cox signed into law HB 138, which regulates the labeling of “cultivated meat products” and “plant or insect-based meat substitutes.” The law defines both categories of products and requires that any food containing a plant or insect-based meat substitute must bear a clear label, indicating the presence of such substitutes in a manner that ensures consumers are reasonably informed. The law will become effective on May 7, 2025; however, enforcement of the new labeling requirements will not begin until October 31, 2025.

Wyoming

2.26.19 – Wyoming Governor Gordon signed into law SB 68, which prohibits 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.

3.3.25 – Wyoming Governor Gordon signed into law SF 84, which introduces a country-of-origin labeling requirement for beef sold within the state. This new requirement specifies that only beef from cattle born and raised in Wyoming can be labeled as a product of the state, and similarly, beef from cattle born and raised in the U.S. may be labeled as a product of the U.S. Additionally, the legislation requires that cell-cultured and plant-based proteins be clearly labeled as such This statute will become effective on July 1, 2025.