After Being Sued, Mississippi Rewrites Its Unconstitutional Ban On The Use Of Meat Words By Vegan Food Producers
from the try-it-again,-but-without-all-the-favoritism dept
Mississippi legislators -- apparently guided by "threatened" cattle farmers -- decided to rewrite its product-labeling laws. It enacted a statute forbidding producers of non-meat products from using meat-associated terms to describe their products. This unconstitutional requirement was put in place to supposedly reduce customer confusion, but the labels targeted made it clear their products -- hamburgers, hot dogs, etc. -- contained zero meat.
"Vegan hot dogs" was no longer acceptable. Neither was the ubiquitous term "veggie burger." The law required plant-based products to disassociate themselves completely from the meat products they were emulating. Very few people have been tricked into buying veggie products when they meant to purchase beef. But consumers looking to replace meat products with veggie alternatives might find it a bit more difficult to figure out what products they're replacing when the descriptive terms aren't all that descriptive.
The state was sued by Upton's Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Food Association. Represented by the Institute for Justice, the plaintiffs sought an injunction blocking the law's enforcement and a declaration that the law itself was unconstitutional.
It appears the state has decided to craft a new statute -- one that doesn't violate the First Amendment -- rather than continue to fight this in court. Scott Shackford has the details at Reason.
Today the Institute of Justice announced what appears to be a successful end to the fight. The Mississippi Department of Agriculture has withdrawn the regulations it proposed to enforce the law and introduced a new set of regulations. Under the new proposal, it's still wrong for a plant-based food product to be labeled as "meat" or a "meat food product," but there will be exceptions for products that include an appropriate qualifying term on the label, such as "plant-based," "meatless," "vegetarian," or "vegan."
The proposed change [PDF] still needs to be adopted and put into force, but this will allow Upton's and others to continue selling their plant-based products without having to alter their packaging or labeling. What the new law would require is something these companies already do:
112.01 Labeling Requirements
1. A plant-based food product label shall not be false or misleading.
2. A plant-based food product shall not be labeled as a “meat” or “meat food product” as defined by Miss. Code Ann. §§75-33-3(1)(b) and 75-35-3(g). For purposes of this section, a plant-based food product will not be considered to be labeled as a “meat” or “meat food product” if one or more of the following terms, or a comparable qualifier, is prominently displayed on the front of the package: “meat free,” “meatless,” “plant-based,” “veggie-based,” “made from plants,” “vegetarian,” or “vegan.”
Governments can regulate speech to a limited extent. But the exceptions must be very narrowly-crafted and serve a "compelling" government interest. Pushing one set of competitors out of the market with ridiculous, unconstitutional speech restrictions isn't the sort of things a government should do, especially if it has to violate the Constitution to do it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fake meat, free speech, labeling, meat, mississippi, vega foods, vegan meat, vegetarian meat
Reader Comments
The First Word
“So to make this clear:
With the previous law in action, you were only allowed to call something a "veggie burger" if it contained beef. Because of consumer confusion.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hooray! Another law that does nothing, but hey, they did something.
I wonder if their meat laws are as, uh, strict when referring to meat products which members of their pet industry cram with non-meat fillers/extenders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clarify whether regulation or legislation. You use both.
Then you reverse:
Soon reversed again:
NOW WHICH IS IT? You claim to be an expert yet use regulation or legislation interchangeably!
If it's regulation, then cannot be "unconstitutional" because businesses agree to be SUBJECT to such as condition of being allowed existence. Can sue for change, but it's not on direct Constitutional basis because businesses are legal fictions.
Since you don't grasp the broad points, I inform you that a regulating body simply decided to clarify a regulation rather than endure courtroom semantics. -- Calling veggie crap a "hot dog" without WARNING adjective is still not allowed.
This is clearly where can. Commercial speech is not 1A speech because businesses are not persons. Period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is clearly where can. Commercial speech is not 1A speech because businesses are not persons. Period.
So therefore - Business can't hold copyrights?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Clarify whether regulation or legislation. You use both.
By your logic, religious speech can be regulated, because religious organizations are corporations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Clarify Troll
By your logic,
Please don't conflate "logic" with anything Blue Balls is saying. He hasn't left his parents basement in years and he just isn't up to forming complete A1 sentences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Clarify whether regulation or legislation. You use both.
Businesses are legal fictions? Are not persons?
I'm sorry, there are a lot of reasons to dislike the Supreme Court rulings that declare businesses to have the same rights as individual people, but those rulings still very much exist.
And while regulation and legislation are not perfectly interchangeable terms, regulations in this context are synonymous with "secondary legislation" which is, obviously, a form of legislation. These regulations are then enacted as statutes, which make up the enforceable collection of state laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey now, don’t confuse Blue. He’s still trying to figure out how he can both hate corporate censorship but condone copyright without the cognitive dissonance giving him an anuerysm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So to make this clear:
With the previous law in action, you were only allowed to call something a "veggie burger" if it contained beef. Because of consumer confusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He apparently feels he can violate all copyrights of Corporations with impunity.
Care to make a clarifying statement Blue Balls? Or has Stone given you an aneurysm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Speech (Lessons)
Well, if they didn't have to violate the Constitution to do it, then it wouldn't exactly be a ridiculous unconstitutional speech restriction, would it?
There's also a little pet peeve of mine; it's easy to get confused because of the plural on "restrictions", but "sort of things" should be the singular "sort of thing" because it is modifying "pushing":
It's right up there with people who incorrectly use "I" instead of "me". That bugs the heck out of I. Looking at you, Ron Pope, G-Eazy, and Halsey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So to make this clear:
Also "Garden Burger" was criminalized, "Soy Milk" and so on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free Speech (Lessons)
I don't know why I chose the name Milton Bradley... it's blatantly obvious that I was thinking of Merriam Webster. Oh well. That's Life for you. Guess nobody has a Monopoly on incorrect word choices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Clarify whether regulation or legislation. You use both.
So did slavery in the USA after Supreme Court rulings!
Is the Supreme Court your final arbiter? Would you simply accept all its decisions when Trump gets to pack it with more "conservatives"?
Probably not, so allow me to protest what I view as wrong, instead of pointing to what a few lawyers claim as absolute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Clarify Troll
Every nation east the paint chips it deserves!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
An argument is a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Hi blue. How's that Fox Rothschild defense fund coming along?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So to make this clear:
Yes.
It was a handout to the meat and dairy industries, who are concerned about losing their market share.
This is, essentially, a face-saving measure. It allows the legislature to continue to pretend that it was really about protecting customers from confusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Balls
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Clarify whether regulation or legislation. You use b
You get out your pitchforks because you demand there must be distinction between "regulation" and "legislation", yet you want to conflate "morally wrong" as being equal with "against the law"?
A law you don't like is still a law. Your opinion that it is wrong doesn't change the fact that the law still exists, even if your opinion happens to be widely shared or easily supported.
Under the articles of the Constitution, yes, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is legal in the United States of America. Not by writing any laws, mind you: only by erasing any laws that conflict with more powerful laws. And if a member of the Supreme Court screws up by erasing a valid law or accepting an invalid law, they can be impeached by Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So, if I was going to sell cans of marrow flesh, I'd still be required to add some extra wording to indicate that I'm talking about the flesh of the marrow gourd, which is a vegetable?
What about mincemeat pie?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what is this site, crazytown full of crazies
the only good comment requires a click cause why, looks like your all commies
first youre all broccoli bruce for veggie glop
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Free Speech (Lessons)
Hey, are you trying to game the system with your airy diction?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So to make this clear:
And yet the meat industry for decades has been selling "hot dogs" that contain almost no dog meat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So to make this clear:
And hamburgers that contain no ham..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How I became famous in life
what the actual fuck
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: what is this site, crazytown full of crazies
i guess that makes you a fascist then.
your's is nearly sure to require a click as well, because votes is why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Clarify whether ignorant or motherfucker. Why not both.
“Is the Supreme Court your final arbiter? ”
According to the constitution you profess to love so much, yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But Taco Bell can continue to call that beef?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So to make this clear:
Mmmmm, steamed hams. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8R3qHKS-dk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Real mincemeat contains meat. It was a coating used to preserve meat which was scraped off of the meat when ready to use the meat. The scraping also picked up bits of meat...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I want to see a law prescribing the minimum levels of cocaine in a product before you are allowed to call it, say, "Coca Cola".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yes it is!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guess they do not read the bible in Mississippi.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another version
And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In its original English which St Jerome translated into Latin because nobody would understand Modern English until a thousand years later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's funny as fuck is that while blue here is perfectly okay with ignoring the law if he feels like it, had this been a case about the meat industry holding the copyright to the word "burger" and dictating what the plant substitute industry could and couldn't do with the word, he'd be on his knees begging for everyone to follow the law to the letter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Clarify whether regulation or legislation. You use both.
I'm pretty sure a "hot dog" doesn't contain dog meat either, so should be banned under appropriate description rules. The term "meat" is also a bit of a stretch too. What % of actual meat is in one of those?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I, for one, demand to know the kola nut content in each can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It did something. the government officials made off with hundreds of thousands of dollars in "overtime".
[ link to this | view in thread ]