Court Rules Texas Food Label Censorship Law is Unconstitutional

Contact: [email protected]

AUSTIN, Texas - The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas has granted a motionfor summary judgmentfiled by Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) on behalf of Tofurky and the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), ruling that a Texas labeling law imposing burdensome standards on plant-based producers cannot be enforced because it violates the First Amendment.

"Instead of making it easier for shoppers to purchase the food items they want, Texas attempted to manipulate the market in favor of animal products by applying a different set of rules for plant-based meat options, making it more challenging and costly for these foods to reach consumers in the state," said Michael Swistara, staff attorney at ALDF. "The court's ruling rightfully levels the playing field and follows the trend of similar laws being struck down or read to be unenforceable against plant-based producers. It is not only a win for plant-based producers, but also consumers who are seeking foods that meet their personal needs and preferences, and align with their values."

Plant-based meat products are clearly marketed and packaged, do not deceive consumers, and comply with federal regulations under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act - yet they are the target of this choice-restricting state law, designed to protect Texas animal producers from competition rather than Texas consumers from nonexistent confusion. The law went into effect on September 1, 2023.

The Court found that the law "violates the rights of plant-based manufacturers to make accurate statements to consumers under the First Amendment." The judge explained that "even in situations, not apparent in the record, where a plant-based food product label misleads consumers, existing law would prohibit those labels except in, possibly, a small minority of circumstances not made apparent to the Court."

In August 2023, ALDF, the Good Food Institute, Kitner Woodward PLLC, and Jones Walker LLP filed this lawsuit alleging the law violates the dormant Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the First Amendment of the Constitution. Plaintiffsargued that the Texas law imposes additional burdensome, impractical, and unclear disclosure requirements on plant-based meat producers that go beyond federal law.

In order to comply with the law, plant-based meat companies would have needed to redesign each product label to conform with a vague standard for any product that could reach Texas consumers, which would have prevented them from communicating the nature and contents of their products in a way that complies with federal law, and would have eviscerated companies' ability to market and sell products on a nationwide basis.

"Tofurky is proud to have served as the lead plaintiffin this case. For decades, consumers have clearly understood our products and our labeling," said Hiro Imanishi, CEO at Tofurky. The court's decision affirms that truthful, transparent labeling is protected and that fair competition should not be restricted by protectionist laws."

"The Plant Based Foods Association celebrates this important decision to invalidate an anti-fair market, unconstitutional labeling law in Texas," said Marjorie Mulhall, executive director of the Plant Based Foods Association. "Americans should have the freedom to choose what they eat and how they feed their families based on their own values, dietary restrictions/preferences, and personal priorities. This Texas law directly undercut that - making it harder for consumers to access delicious foods that align with their needs."

"We applaud the court's decision to strike down Texas's anti-competitive and unconstitutional label censorship law," said Madeline Cohen, associate director, regulatory affairs at the Good Food Institute. "This ruling is a win not only for plant-based food producers, but for Texas consumers, who are more than capable of making their own choices at the grocery store without the need for protectionist regulations. States shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and this law did exactly that by restricting truthful, non-misleading commercial speech. As the court recognized, consumers have never been confused by plant-based meat labels, and this patronizing law was an attempt to solve a problem that didn't exist - at the expense of consumer choice, free speech and the free market."

Federal courts have recognized that the likelihood that consumers might be confused about plant-based naming conventions is "highly improbable" and "stretches the bounds of credulity." The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed naming conventions similar to Tofurky's and found it implausible that consumers would "believe that veggie bacon contains pork, that flourless chocolate cake contains flour, or that e-books are made out of paper."

The Texas law is similar to earlier meat-labeling censorship laws aimed at curtailing the truthful commercial speech of plant-based food companies that have been passed in Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma, among other states. A number of those laws were similarly challenged by Tofurky and ALDF. In December 2019, these organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the Arkansas law; the court halted its enforcement and determined that it was an unconstitutional restriction on Tofurky's right to free speech. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals also determined that Louisiana's law could only be applied in the far-fetched scenario in which a plant-based meat producer might attempt to intentionally trick consumers into thinking its products came from slaughtered animals - essentially rendering the Louisiana law irrelevant. In the Missouri and Oklahoma cases, the courts ruled the laws failed to apply to plant-based producers.