Further challenges to a law that bars companies labeling non-livestock and poultry products as meat may happen despite a federal appeals court ruling in favor of the state of Missouri.
Turtle Island Foods, which sells plant-based meat substitute products, sued the state, and its prosecuting attorneys, over the 2018 law that introduces criminal penalties if the labels suggest it is meat generically, or a type, including sausage or chicken.
The company, supported by the Washington-based Good Food Institute (GFI), claimed the law violated its First Amendment right to free speech, and argued it could be penalized even if the product is clearly labeled as vegan.
But the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, afffirming a district court decision, denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from being enforced, though it did not consider the merits of the underlying arguments.
The GFI said the company, which sells under the Tofurky brand, can continue to challenge the law using free speech arguments, and also on commerce and due process grounds, but Attorney General Eric Schmitt said the state will defend against further legal action.
"Ensuring that the food that Missourians buy is marketed correctly is of vital importance to both the consumers and the farmers and ranchers that produce that food,” said Schmitt.
“We will continue to defend the State against any further appeals or challenges in this case."
Mike Deering, executive vice president of the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association, said that a bipartisan majority in the General Assembly "made clear their intent to ensure marketing with integrity." He added that farm and ranch families "are grateful."
The Eighth Circuit decision, while denying the injunction, does allow the suit to move forward to trial on its merits.
"The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of our motion for a preliminary injunction, but this ruling did not reach the question of whether label censorship is constitutional under the First Amendment," Elizabeth Derbes, associate director of regulatory affairs with the Good Food Institute, told the St. Louis Record.
"The ruling also did not reach the other two constitutional claims at issue under the dormant commerce clause and the due process clause."
GFI and Tofurky can continue the challenge to Missouri's law before the district court, while the appeals court stated that the denial of the injunction "may provide little guidance as to the appropriate disposition on the merits," Derbes noted.
She added: "GFI opposes laws that create an uneven playing field for alternative proteins. We want consumers to be the ones to choose winners and losers in the marketplace, not the government.
"Other organizations, including libertarians and free speech advocates, share our concern that these laws are unconstitutional.
"There's no reason that a state that embraces meat should create or enforce anti-competitive laws targeted at alternative protein producers."