A federal judge in Austin has put Texas on ice over its latest fight with plant-based meat makers, blocking the state from forcing them to slap oversized disclaimers on their packaging and finding that the labeling rule violates companies' First Amendment rights. The decision, issued earlier this month on summary judgment, stops enforcement of the portions of the Health & Safety Code that Senate Bill 664 added.
What SB 664 Required
Under SB 664, analogue and cell-cultured products had to carry a qualifying term such as "analogue," "meatless," "plant-based," "made from plants," "cell-cultured," or "lab-grown" in type at least as large as the product name and placed close to it. According to LegiScan, "close proximity" could mean immediately before or after the name, in the same phrase, or in the line directly before or after the product name.
Judge's Ruling
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman sided with the manufacturers and granted summary judgment, finding there was "no evidence of misleading speech" and that Texas had not shown the law served a substantial governmental interest under the Central Hudson commercial-speech test. The court held that the statute was facially invalid and ordered that it not be enforced. According to Food Navigator, the ruling relied in part on a consumer survey from the plaintiffs showing very high accuracy in identifying meatless products.
Industry Response
Tofurky, the lead plaintiff in the case, and advocacy groups quickly cheered the ruling, arguing that the law was really about shielding traditional meat producers from competition rather than clearing up any supposed confusion at the grocery store. In a statement published by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, staff attorney Michael Swistara said the ruling "rightfully levels the playing field," and Tofurky's leadership called the outcome a vindication for truthful, transparent labeling. See the full statement from the Animal Legal Defense Fund for more.
Why It Matters
The decision saves plant-based producers from having to retool packaging just for Texas and lines up with a growing string of federal rulings that have pushed back on state efforts to police meat-analogue names. Any appeal would land at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and industry watchers say both food manufacturers and state regulators will be paying close attention. For further analysis, see Food Business News.
