Missouri – the ‘Show Me’ state – has jumped the gun on the feds and passed a law requiring all non-Meat products to be labeled as such. That is, labels on such products may not say anything that might confuse consumers about their non-Meat status. And that’s got some folks pretty upset…
The new Missouri Law faces some interesting implementation challenges.
How do you treat brands with registered names like ‘Beyond Meat’?
And what about generic words like ‘Burger’? Do labelling
laws just open a huge kettle of marketing Fish?
Missouri’s new law basically prohibits manufacturers of plant-based Meat substitutes and makers of lab-grown, or ‘clean’ Meats from saying anything on their labels that might lead consumers to think they are ‘real’ meat.
Violations of the law can bring fines of up to (US)$1,000 and jail time of up to a year.
A matter dollars and sense…
The new Missouri law was pushed hard by the state Cattlemen’s Association.
Association spokesman Mike Deering told USA Today: “The big issue was marketing with integrity and […] consumers knowing what they’re getting. There’s so much unknown about this.”
Of course, Deering and his group are also concerned about protecting state Cattle Producers’ income and investments. As other Cattlemen (and women) have said, ‘fake’ and ‘clean’ meat threaten their very way of life. But I guess Deering thought that could go without saying.
Sounds to me a bit like bullying by the Beef Producers (pun intended). But the sentiment seems to run nation-wide.
What are backers of Veggie- and lab-meat doing in response?
The folks who make the Tofurkey products – one of the first players to enter the Meat substitute marketplace back in 1980 – have launched a lawsuit against the Missouri law, claiming it infringes their (and others’) First Amendment free speech rights. In addition, the Tofurkey suit points out that the State of Missouri has received no complaints about the labelling of Meat substitutes.
In a statement about the suit, Tofurky CEO Jaime Athos said: “I have always envisioned Tofurky serving a greater purpose beyond the plate, acting as an engine for global change,” Using our privately-held position to extinguish threats to legal definitions of terms like ‘meat’, is one way we can further our mission to help reduce global dependence on animal agriculture; therefore, improving environmental sustainability, animal welfare and human health.”
Okay. That’s pretty high-flung stuff. But I can see his point.
My take…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) predicts that the demand for red Meat and Poultry this year will exceed 222 pounds per U.S. resident this year. That figure hasn’t been as high since 2004. At an average (US)$5 per pound, that’s a retail market of over (US)$1,000 per person or (US)$330 billion.
On the other side of the the ledger, the meat-substitute market is expected to reach $7.5 billion globally by 2025, up from close to $4.2 billion last year, according to Allied Market Research. Divide that by a world population, by that time, of about 7.5 billion, and you get $(US)1.00 per person. Multiply by the population of the U.S. by then – say, 330 million – and you get (US)$330 million dollars. Are the Cattlemen and their ilk afraid that the ‘rise of ‘fake’ meat is going to impact their business all that seriously? I can’t see that.
For the record, I don’t think most people are stupid enough to mistake non-Meat products for ‘real’ Meat, given the contrast Meat substitute producers strive to make between their products and Meat on their labels already.
Meanwhile… France has already acted to regulate the labeling of non-Meat ‘Meat’ products and other jurisdictions are following suit. In every case, these moves are being pushed by producers of ‘real’ Meat who are, in effect, deploying a bucket of water to extinguish a match.
~ Maggie J.