\n\n“As of October 1, a new law in Louisiana bans grocery stores from calling veggie burgers \u201cveggie burgers,\u201d as well as many similar product labels like \u201cplant-based sausages\u201d or \u201cseitan-based vegan bacon.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The justification? That consumers might get confused about whether veggie burgers are made of beef. It\u2019s the latest of a series of attempts by meat companies to ban their plant-based competitors from grocery store shelves \u2014 and many legal experts say it\u2019s probably unconstitutional.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Last year, Arkansas tried a nearly identical law, and Tofurky sued<\/a>. A judge issued an injunction a few months later, finding that the law violated the free-speech protections of the US Constitution<\/a> and telling Arkansas it may not enforce the law while the case proceeds through the courts. Mississippi tried a similar law, too, and backed down, promising to revise it<\/a>, when sued. That didn\u2019t stop Louisiana from proceeding with its own, nearly identical law, but it is likely no more constitutional than the Arkansas or Mississippi ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why are we fighting about Tofurky? There are no indications that consumers are confused about whether veggie burgers are made out of meat. But as plant-based products get more popular, these labeling laws are one of the meat industry\u2019s favorite tools to fight back \u2014 even though courts keep on soundly rejecting them.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The First Amendment can be applied to commercial speech \u2014 though the law is a bit complicated. In the 1940s, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously<\/a> that there were no First Amendment protections for purely commercial speech. By the 1970s, the Court had reconsidered that and overturned it in 1976<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1980, the Court supplied the rules for First Amendment protections on commercial speech that are still applied today. Those rules are called the \u201cCentral Hudson\u201d test because they were laid out inCentral Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here are the rules<\/a>: First, commercial speech \u201cmust concern lawful activity and not be misleading.\u201d Supporters of Louisiana\u2019s law might argue that the term \u201calmond milk\u201d is misleading, while opponents argue that consumers know perfectly well what almond milk is \u2014 that, as Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) put it<\/a>, \u201cNo one buys almond milk under the false illusion that it came from a cow. They buy almond milk because it didn\u2019t come from a cow.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere\u2019s nothing misleading about the name of a veggie burger, or vegan hot dog, or seitan bacon,\u201d Jessica Almy, an attorney and director of policy at the Good Food Institute,told me when we spoke about a similar Missouri case. \u201cThe packages clearly disclose that this is plant-based food that has the taste or texture of this familiar food.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere is not one consumer complaint to the AG\u2019s office ever filed,\u201d Amanda Howell, co-counsel on the Louisiana case, told me. \u201cAll plant-based products I\u2019ve seen are doing their best to make sure consumers know that they\u2019re plant-based.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading, the government can still regulate it. But it has to meet the following standards<\/a>: The government must have a \u201csubstantial interest\u201d at stake, the regulation must \u201cdirectly and materially advance the government\u2019s substantial interest,\u201d and \u201cthe regulation must be narrowly tailored<\/a>.\u201d” <\/p>\n\n\n\n