The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas has ruled in favor Tofurky and has blocked a law prohibiting terms like “burger” and “sausage” from being used for plant-based products.
Labels like this, referring to vegan products as “sausage”, were illegal under the Arkansas law blocked by a district court judge.
The lawsuit brought on behalf of vegan meat company Tofurky was filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Good Food Institute and ACLU. The lawsuit challenged an Arkansas law that would have made it illegal for companies to use words like “burger,” “roast,” and “sausage” to describe products that are not made from animals, including “veggie burgers”, “vegan roast” and “plant-based sausage”.
The court found that the challenged provisions of the Arkansas law unconstitutionally limited Tofurky’s commercial free speech rights, saying that the law was unconstitutionally vague. The court’s ruling permanently blocks enforcement of the law.
The Arkansas law would have imposed fines of up to $1,000 for every plant-based and cultivated meat product marketed or packaged with a “meat” label.
Judge Kristine G. Baker found that the law prohibited Tofurky from using words “to convey meaningful, helpful information to consumers about the products they are purchasing, and Tofurky’s repeated indications that the food products contained in these packages contain no animal-based meat dispel consumer confusion.”
“The State appears to believe that the simple use of the word ‘burger,’ ‘ham,’ or ‘sausage’ leaves the typical consumer confused, but such a position requires the assumption that a reasonable consumer will disregard all other words found on the label”, said Judge Baker. “The State has not come forward with any evidence of broad marketplace confusion around plant-based meat alternatives to bolster its claim.”
Jaime Athos, Tofurky CEO and President stated that the court ruling in Arkansas “affirms what we have been saying all along – consumers are buying plant-based products, like Tofurky, knowingly and intentionally, not because they are confused. Consumers choose plant-based because of their values, nutritional or taste preferences and concerns about the impacts of animal agriculture on the environment.” He continues: “The passage of this law was never about helping consumers, it was a naked attempt by the state legislature to interfere in the marketplace and limit competition against animal agriculture interests. Thankfully, the court in Arkansas has seen through this ruse, just like a recent Louisiana court judgment, on a comparable law.”
Athos says that Tofurky looks forward to “future court victories in other states, and while that is gratifying on some level it is also frustrating”, noting that they “would much rather legislatures spend time working to benefit constituents, so that we could spend more time making good food for our customers.”
“The industrial animal agriculture industry goes to great lengths to deter and disadvantage innovative food producers that demonstrate an evolution of our food system is not only possible — it’s profitable,” says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. “This should be yet another wake up call for legislators to stop putting animal agriculture’s corporate interests in front of constituents’ constitutional rights and the public’s interests in protecting animals and the environment.”
Madeline Cohen, The Good Food Institute Regulatory Attorney, says the order “is a win for consumers, who do not need government interference from the use of well-understood terms to describe plant-based products. U.S. food laws have long required that food producers label their products truthfully, and unnecessary and damaging laws like Arkansas’ that attempt to micromanage commercial free speech are regrettable. The Court agrees that Arkansas consumers can clearly tell the difference between a veggie burger and a beef burger when the product label plainly indicates this. Laws like this patronize and insult the intelligence of Arkansas consumers and should be struck down given what’s at stake: a more sustainable food system that works for everyone—farmers, food companies, consumers, and entire communities”, he says.
