by John M. Simpson.<\/p>\n
The\u00a0American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), a prominent non-governmental organization in the U.S. representing farm and ranch families, held its annual meeting earlier this month in New Orleans.\u00a0 Among the topics discussed (in addition to the address by President Trump), was the increase in\u00a0“alternative protein” production,\u00a0namely meat-like substances that are\u00a0derived from plant ingredients or that are cell-based and grown in a laboratory from animal cells.\u00a0 Plant-based “meat” products (e.g.<\/em>, “tofurky”)\u00a0are currently available at retail.\u00a0\u00a0Cell-cultured “meat” products are not yet available but could be seen in 2019.<\/p>\n As was noted during the discussion\u00a0<\/a>at the AFBF meeting, the target audience of these products is not comprised solely of vegetarians or vegans.\u00a0\u00a0It\u00a0includes meat eaters as well.<\/p>\n The emergence of these alternative protein products raises many issues, including which agency at the federal level will regulate them — the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Agriculture.\u00a0 In addition, there is concern among the traditional livestock and poultry producing community that labeling these products with the word “meat” is misleading to consumers.\u00a0 As set forth in its press release<\/a>, the AFBF delegates adopted a policy statement to address some of\u00a0these issues:<\/p>\n Delegates adopted a comprehensive policy to support innovation in cell-based food products while ensuring a level playing field for traditional protein. Delegates affirmed that the Agriculture Department is best equipped to be the primary regulator of new cell-based products as it encouraged USDA to utilize the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s expertise in food safety. The policy also calls for complete and accurate product labels to ensure that consumers have all the pertinent information they need.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As we have reported<\/a> previously, the manufacture of alternative protein sources that are labeled as “meat” or sold as such has generated controversy in the agricultural community.\u00a0 As a result, lawmakers in states with\u00a0heavy agricultural constituencies\u00a0have taken steps to ensure that consumers are not misled.\u00a0\u00a0Missouri was the first state in the U.S. to pass a law to prohibit \u201cmisrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested livestock or poultry.\u201d\u00a0 Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 265.494(7). The Missouri law, which was adopted in 2018, was challenged in court by an alternative protein manufacturer and a lobbying organization sympathetic to animal rights\u00a0interests who are both represented by animal rights attorneys.\u00a0 Turtle Island Foods d\/b\/a The Tofurky Company, et al. v. Richardson et al., <\/em>2:18-cv-04173-NKL (W.D. Mo.).\u00a0 The Turtle Island<\/em> case remains\u00a0pending.<\/p>\n In the meantime, measures similar to the Missouri law have been introduced in several states\u00a0and are now pending in the current legislative sessions:<\/p>\n Indiana:<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a> HB 1414 provides that a food product is misbranded and may not be sold or offered for sale if (1) it is not “derived from harvested livestock or poultry” but has a label stating or implying that it is a meat or poultry product; or (2) it is cultured\u00a0in vitro<\/em> from animal cells and is not so labeled.<\/p>\n Nebraska:<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0 LB 14 prohibits, as a misleading or deceptive practice, offering or selling a product by misrepresenting it “as meat\u00a0that is not derived from livestock or poultry.”\u00a0 The bill further defines “meat” as “any edible portion of any livestock or poultry carcass or part thereof and does not include lab-grown or insect or plant-based food products.”<\/p>\n Tennessee:<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong> SB 0003 prohibits,\u00a0under the state\u00a0inspection law,\u00a0“misrepresenting as meat or poultry a product that is not from the carcass of slaughtered livestock or poultry.”<\/p>\n Virginia:<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong> HB 2274 declares that a food product is misbranded “if it purports to be, or is represented as, a meat food product while containing no meat” except to the extent that “the word ‘imitation’ followed by the name of the meat food product” appears on the label.<\/p>\n