红杏视频

ARKANSAS 鈥� The 红杏视频, The Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and 红杏视频 of Arkansas today filed a lawsuit challenging an Arkansas law that would impose fines of up to $1,000 for every plant-based and cell-based meat product, such as 鈥渧eggie burgers鈥� and 鈥渢ofu dogs,鈥� marketed or packaged with a 鈥渕eat鈥� label. The labels would be subject to fines within state borders even if followed by modifiers such as 鈥渧egan,鈥� 鈥渧eggie,鈥� or 鈥減lant-based.鈥� Under the law, which is set to go in effect this week, products labeled as 鈥渃auliflower rice鈥� (but not 鈥渞iced cauliflower鈥�) and 鈥渁lmond milk鈥� would also be considered mislabeled and subject to fines for not containing any actual rice or dairy.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Tofurky in federal court. It argues the Arkansas law violates the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment鈥檚 due process clause by improperly censoring truthful speech and creating consumer confusion in order to shore up the state鈥檚 meat and rice industries. The lawsuit adds that there is no evidence that the current labels mislead consumers, pointing out that Tofurky鈥檚 products all clearly indicate the products are plant-based, meatless, vegetarian, or vegan. The law鈥檚 proponents have admitted that the law鈥檚 purpose is to protect the agricultural producers in the state.

鈥淭he only confusion here seems to be on the part of the Arkansas legislature, which seems to have forgotten its responsibility to its constituents in its rush to pass an unconstitutional law at the behest of its special interest donors,鈥� said Jaime Athos, CEO of Tofurky. 鈥淲hen consumers choose plant-based foods, it is not because they are confused or misled, it is because they are savvy and educated about the health and environmental consequences of eating animal products. What鈥檚 really going on here is that the state of Arkansas is seeking to limit access to healthier, more sustainable food choices for its constituents, and it is doing so to benefit the animal agriculture industry.鈥�

The Arkansas law is substantially similar to meat-labeling censorship laws recently passed in Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota, and other states. A number of those laws face similar legal challenges, including by the 红杏视频, Good Food Institute, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The Missouri law, for instance, was initially proposed by the Missouri Cattlemen鈥檚 Association. When discussing the perceived need for the Missouri law, state representative Jeff Knight publicly admitted that: 鈥淲e鈥檙e just trying to protect our product.鈥� Animal agriculture industry representatives previously producers that competition from plant-based and cell-based options is one of the 鈥渕ajor challenges鈥� the animal meat industry faces in 2018.

The following comments are from:

Brian Hauss, staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project: 鈥淚t's absurdly patronizing that the government of Arkansas is asserting that the people of Arkansas can't tell a 鈥榲eggie burger鈥� from a 鈥榟amburger,鈥� or a 鈥榯ofu dog鈥� from a 鈥榟ot dog.鈥� The government should focus on genuine consumer protection problems instead of playing word games to benefit special interests at the First Amendment鈥檚 expense.鈥�

Stephen Wells, Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director: 鈥淢ore and more, consumers are seeking out plant-based foods that can be produced without cruelty to animals or polluting our environment. But Arkansas鈥� lawmakers, kowtowing to the animal agriculture industry, have responded by enacting an unconstitutional law that makes truthful speech a crime.鈥�

Jessica Almy, Director of Policy, Good Food Institute: 鈥淚t's absurd and unconstitutional to censor veggie burger labels. We are bringing this litigation in order to stand up for free speech, free markets, and consumer choice. We are confident that the court will strike down this gross overstep of state power.鈥�