In a brazen attempt to restrict the First Amendment rights of those concerned with the effects of their food choices, the Missouri Legislature passed a law on Tuesday that prohibits 鈥渕isrepresenting鈥� any product as 鈥渕eat鈥� if it does not come from a slaughtered animal.
The new law now makes it a crime for plant-based and clean-meat producers to accurately inform consumers what their products are: Foods designed to fulfill the roles conventional slaughtered meat has traditionally played in a meal. For example, under the law, selling a vegan sausage would be illegal because the word 鈥渟ausage鈥� has been traditionally associated with animal meat.
And that鈥檚 unconstitutional.
This week, we teamed up with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Good Food Institute, and plant-based meat powerhouse Tofurky . We鈥檙e seeking an injunction to stop this unconstitutional law from being enforced.
What鈥檚 even more troublesome about Missouri鈥檚 law is that it鈥檚 so vague it鈥檚 impossible for companies to know what is and is not legal. It makes it a crime to share how a plant-based product replaces animal meat in a meal because the government has declared a preference in the marketplace. In this case, the state is suppressing the speech of plant-based and clean-meat corporations that are, in no way, trying to deceive consumers.
Legislators, however, claim this law protects consumers. That鈥檚 a bunch of bologna. The explicit aim of the law is to protect the state鈥檚 animal agriculture industry because meat producers feel threatened by plant-based and clean-meat products marketed as alternatives to slaughtered meat.
No one is confused when they see a Tofurky sausage or a veggie deli slice. In fact, the state鈥檚 consumer protection agency has no evidence of consumer confusion over the labeling of plant-based meats.
The First Amendment is our most powerful tool to keep the government from regulating our conversations. You may not like Tofurky or have an opinion about animal-rights activism 鈥� and that鈥檚 okay. This is America, after all. But your government, or any government for that matter, shouldn鈥檛 be able to restrict truthful speech because it鈥檚 not in their interest or because it鈥檚 trying to protect a powerful lobby from market competition.
With this law, Missouri has chosen to censor the conversation around dietary decisions in service of protectionism for a favored domestic industry. Everyone who cares about the Constitution should be concerned about that, regardless of what they put on their plate.
There鈥檚 nothing fake about Missouri鈥檚 censorship of free speech.
