‘Veggie Burger’ Ban: Mississippi’s Unconstitutional Advertising Restrictions

by | Jul 20, 2019 | Constitution, Free Speech

The government has no power to keep consumers in the dark—or to prohibit the use of terms that consumers understand—in order to protect special interests from honest competition.

Brace yourselves: Veggie burgers don’t contain meat.

If this doesn’t come as a stunning revelation, then you’re savvier than the state of Mississippi gives you credit for. This year, at the behest of the meat lobby, Mississippi banned food companies making plant-based meat alternatives from using any meat product terms on their labels, supposedly to protect consumers.

Mississippi’s ban will have a devastating effect on companies like Upton’s Naturals, an independently owned, Chicago-based manufacturer of vegan foods. Upton’s Naturals markets its foods to consumers who are specifically looking for alternatives to meat. Not surprisingly, then, Upton’s Naturals’ labels proudly state that its foods are 100% vegan, while also using terms that let consumers know what these foods substitute for, such as “burger,” “bacon,” and “chorizo.” But under Mississippi’s new law, which went into effect on July 1, 2019, these and other similar labels are now illegal, with potential fines and even criminal penalties for violations.

Mississippi’s law has nothing to do with protecting consumers and everything to do with protecting meat processors from honest competition. Nobody who buys Upton’s Naturals’ foods thinks they’re buying animal meat. Instead, consumers seek out these foods because they want to enjoy a tasty burger not made from animals. And Upton’s Naturals has a right to advertise its foods to those consumers using terms that will help them find what they’re looking for.

That’s why, on July 2, 2019, Upton’s Naturals and the Plant Based Foods Association teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit challenging Mississippi’s unconstitutional attempt to ban their advertising.

Upton’s Naturals was founded in 2006 by entrepreneur Daniel Staackmann. From its initial line of flavored seitan—a wheat-based meat substitute that is common in Asian cuisine—Upton’s Naturals has grown to offer a wide variety of meat substitutes. These range from wheat-based bacon and burger patties to jackfruit-based barbeque.

Since its founding, Upton’s Naturals has made clear to consumers that its foods contain no meat. The labels clearly state “100% Vegan.” Upton’s Naturals doesn’t hide what it’s selling; it wants consumers to know that its foods are not from an animal. But it also wants consumers to know the types of meat products it offers substitutes for, such as burgers, jerky, and bacon.

Upton’s Naturals is also a member of the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), a membership trade association that represents the interests of a growing number of companies offering innovative plant-based alternatives to conventional meat and dairy products. With nearly 150 member companies nationwide, PBFA works in the policy arena and in the marketplace to create a strong foundation for its members to succeed and thrive.

Mississippi’s Unconstitutional Advertising Restrictions

Unfortunately for Upton’s Naturals and PBFA, not everyone is happy with the competition from plant-based meat substitutes. In Mississippi and other states, the meat lobby has pushed for laws that restrict how plant-based meat alternatives may be labeled.

In Mississippi, these efforts took the form of Senate Bill 2922. Lobbied for by the Mississippi Cattlemen’s Association , the new law prohibits producers of plant-based meat alternatives from marketing their foods using words signifying any kind of meat or meat product. This means that even common terms such as “veggie burgers,” “hot dogs,” “sausages,” and “jerky” are banned.

Mississippi’s ban is devastating for companies like Upton’s Naturals. Upton’s Naturals markets its foods to consumers looking for meat alternatives. To continue selling its foods in Mississippi, Upton’s Naturals would be forced to design and print special labels just for the Mississippi market, without the words consumers are looking for when they shop for meat alternatives. This would be extremely costly and burdensome and frustrate consumers.

The First Amendment Protects the Right to Use Words Consumers Understand

Mississippi’s ban on meat or meat-related words on the labels of meat alternatives violates the right to free speech. Under the First Amendment, commercial information that is not false or inherently misleading enjoys substantial constitutional protection. Laws restricting this type of speech will be upheld only if the government can produce actual evidence that the laws address a real problem and burden no more speech than necessary to address that problem.

Here, there is nothing misleading about Upton’s Naturals’ use of terms such as “bacon” and “burger.” Just like nobody thinks that peanut butter is made from butterfat, nobody thinks that vegan bacon comes from an animal. Simply put, context matters. People shopping for meat substitutes know that what they’re buying doesn’t come from animals—after all, the labels clearly say,“100% Vegan.”

The real reason for Mississippi’s law is obvious: The meat industry is feeling the pain of competition as consumers seek out alternatives, and it wants to protect itself from competition. But the government has no power to keep consumers in the dark—or to prohibit the use of terms that consumers understand—in order to protect special interests from honest competition.

This case raises a single claim under the First Amendment, seeking to vindicate the right to provide truthful advertising using terms that consumers understand.

Made available from ij.org.

IJ litigates to limit the size and scope of government power and to ensure that all Americans have the right to control their own destinies as free and responsible members of society. Visit their website at www.ij.org

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Related articles

The Supreme Court Just Gave Us Hope

The Supreme Court Just Gave Us Hope

The case offers direct parallels to the censorship of Covid-related information. The Biden White House repeatedly worked through third parties – including Meta, Twitter, and Google – to censor disfavored information.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest