Texas district court greenlights plant-based labeling lawsuit

Texas SB 664​ requires that plant-based or cultivated meat, poultry, seafood and egg products to prominently display terms like “analogue,” “meatless,” “plant-based,” or “made from plants” near the product name, using font size that is equal to or larger than surrounding text. For cultivated meat products, labels must refer to these as “cell-cultured” or “lab-grown” to communicate the product’s nature to consumers, according to the law, which went into effectt Sept. 1, 2023.

In October 2023, plant-based meat brand, Tofurky, challenged Texas’ labeling law with claims that “the law institutes an unreasonably burdensome and protectionist trade barrier that contravenes and is preempted by federal law and imposes vague standards on Tofurky and other plant-based meat producers who use words associated with meat products to describe products that are clearly marketed and packaged as 100% plant-based/vegan.”

Last month, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) and the Good Food Institute filed a complaint on behalf of Tofurky contesting the Texas law under the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment of the Constitution, according to ALDF.​

Last week, the United States District Court of the Western District of Texas ruled in favor​ of ALDF and Good Food Institute on behalf of Tofurky and the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), rejecting the state’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit.

Tofurky and PBFA also maintain that the current patchwork of state-by-state labeling requirements is “intended to make the sale of plant-based products impracticable on a nationwide basis,” according to ALDF.

To comply with Texas law, companies would need a label and marketing redesign which would “prevent them from communicating the nature and contents of their products in a way that complies with federal law,” in addition to thwarting the marketing and selling of these products nationwide, ALDF added.

"This decision is good news for consumers, small businesses and the free market. Laws like this one in Texas create an unfair playing field for new companies entering the marketplace, and ultimately restrict innovation. While the court's ruling may not prevent some other state legislators from introducing similar problematic bills, it certainly increases the likelihood that fewer of these protectionist laws will ever be enforced,” Pepin Tuma, legislative director, Good Food Institute, told FoodNavigator-USA.

Texas law outlines labeling requirements on cultivated meat and meat alternatives​

Last September, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law SB 664​, which requires labels for lab-grown meat and meat alternatives. The law states that a meat analogue is considered misbranded if it does not include verbiage such as “analogue,” “meatless,” “plant-based,” “made from plants,” or similar qualifying terms that communicate its contents clearly to the consumer.

While cultivated meat is currently unavailable for retail sale in the US, Alabama and Florida are the first states to pass laws banning the manufacture, sale or distribution of these products.

Critics of these laws deem labeling constraints and product bans as political​ and an infringement on freedom of speech and the free market. While proponents argue that products like cultivated meat threaten the cattle​ and agricultural industry.