People like to say that the states are microcosms of democracy—a proving ground for what might work on a national scale, with state-level action suitable to test and explore a variety of different ideas. Meat-labeling laws reflect this. As a result, the laws come in many different shapes and sizes. Across the board, though, the laws seem to vary based on what conduct is prohibited (e.g., calling a plant-based product meat-like, versus selling cell-cultured meat as meat at all) and penalties that some person violating the laws would face (e.g., a civil fine of $1,000, or a criminal charge of a misdemeanor).

Some states have passed laws that would impose only civil penalties for relatively simple acts of “mislabeling.” Arkansas is one such state. In Arkansas, the law defines “agricultural products” to be “horticultural, viticultural, forestry, dairy, livestock, poultry, or bee product or any other farm, ranch, plantation, or range product.” The law goes on to define meat as “a portion of a livestock, poultry, or cervid carcass that is edible by humans,” and has specifically excluded from the definition of meat “synthetic product derived from a plant, insect, or other source; or [] product grown in a laboratory.” “Prohibited activities” in violation of this law include “misbrand[ing] or misrepresent[ing] an agricultural product that is edible by humans, . . . by [][a]ffixing a label that is false or misleading.” Penalties for such violating the law include a civil penalty “not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation.” Arkansas’s law went into effect on July 24, 2019, and, as discussed in this blog, the state has already been sued regarding the law.  

Other states have gone a step further. Missouri, for example, would impose criminal liability on anyone who violates the state’s labeling law, ratchetting up the risk by making a violation of the law a misdemeanor crime. The law’s prohibition appears simple enough, stating that “[n]o person advertising, offering for sale or selling all or part of a carcass or food plan shall engage in any misleading or deceptive practices, including, but not limited to . . . [m]ispresenting the cut, grade, brand or trade name, or weight or measure of any product, or misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.” Violating this provision exposes a person to a class A misdemeanor, with penalties including up to one year in jail. And as of mid-2019, at least two other states, including Mississippi and South Dakota, have also enacted laws threatening criminal liability. As discussed in this blog, Missouri and Mississippi have already been sued regarding their laws.

Additionally, in light of pending legislation, there is still uncertainty concerning just what conduct states want to prohibit, and in some cases, states are now seeking to prohibit other plant alternatives beyond plant-based meat. For example, Arkansas—the nation’s largest rice producer—has gone on the offensive against alternative “rice,” including cauliflower rice, and now prohibits labeling such non-rice products as “rice,” prompting one state legislator to summing up his views on cauliflower rice with, “I like it. There’s nothing wrong with it. Except that it’s not rice.” And in Montana, a newly passed truth-in-labeling law seems specially targeted against cell-cultured or even insect-based meat products.