ST. LOUIS — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey secured an order to uphold the accuracy of meat product advertising.
Bailey noted the importance of correctly marketing food in Missouri, asserting its significance for consumers, as well as the farmers and ranchers who produce the food.
"Ensuring that food sold within the State of Missouri is marketed correctly is of vital importance to both consumers and the farmers and ranchers that produce that food," Bailey said in a news release. "I will continue to fight to defend the integrity of Missouri’s marketplace."
In 2018, a law was designed to prevent misleading labeling of plant-based or lab-grown products as conventional meat, ensuring transparency for consumers.
The statute mandates that producers of these alternative products clearly disclose their nature to avoid confusing buyers. It does not prohibit the sale or consumption of these products but aims to maintain integrity in marketing.
The Missouri Cattleman's Association President, Chuck Miller, expressed gratitude for the law.
"When our association led this legislation nearly six years ago, we were the first state in the country to require labeling with integrity," Miller said. "The legislation in no way prohibited the sale or consumption of these imitation products, but it did require truthful and accurate labeling."
Miller highlighted that Missouri was a pioneer in requiring truthful labeling.
"Misleading consumers was unacceptable then and it is clear with today’s decision that it’s unacceptable now, Miller said. "We are truly grateful for the work of Attorney General Andrew Bailey and his team."
The General Assembly passed the law to combat false advertising that could mislead consumers about the nature of the products they purchase. It specifically targets the misrepresentation of plant-based or lab-grown items as conventional meat.
The statute requires clear disclosure from producers of these alternatives to ensure consumers are informed about what they are buying. It restricts the labeling of products as "any edible portion of livestock, poultry, or captive cervid carcass" unless they are derived from conventionally harvested livestock or poultry.
In support of Bailey's defense of the law, the court noted that its purpose was to reduce consumer confusion and guarantee informed purchasing decisions.
The court also dismissed claims that the law unfairly targets alternative meat producers, stating that the legislation does not discriminate against conventional meat producers.
The collaboration between the Department of Agriculture and the Attorney General's Office played a significant role in a successful defense.
In the order, the defendants argue that "[n]either the Department [of Agriculture] nor a prosecutor has tried to enforce the statue in the way that the plaintiffs fear, or even given any indication that they plan to do so. No member of the defendant class of prosecutors has taken [action] or threatened to act. No defendant-class member intends to charge, has charged, or has convicted anyone of the statute at issue. The only prosecutor named as a representative of the class has disavowed any enforcement action. And it has been almost five years since the statute went into effect."
The defendants in the case argued that any declaration that the court would issue would be purely advisory and thus improper.
The plaintiffs argue that they have demonstrated "an actual and well-founded fear that the law will be enforced against them."
The court does not agree, the order states.
"Plaintiffs have not shown that either their conduct or speech is proscribed by the statute," the order states. "The Statute applies to persons advertising, offering for sale or selling all or part of a carcass or food plan from 'misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.'"
The Attorney General's Office did not respond to requests for comment.