Tofurky utilizes plant-based ingredients to approximate the texture, flavor and appearance of conventional meats produced from livestock and its packages feature descriptors like \u201cdeli slices,\u201d \u201csmoked ham,\u201d \u201cbologna,\u201d \u201chot dogs,\u201d \u201csausages,\u201d \u201cchorizo,\u201d and \u201cham roast\u201d and other terms that plaintiff Good Food Institute calls \u201cmeat analogues.\u201d<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs brought their lawsuit in August of 2018 alleging that Missouri\u2019s amended meat advertising law violates the First Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and their due process rights. Plaintiffs fear that the Missouri law will restrict how they can market, advertise and sell their products in the nationwide marketplace. They sought a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the law, a declaration that it is unconstitutional, and costs and attorneys\u2019 fees. Tofurky claimed that it feared prosecution under the statute even though its labels include modifiers like \u201cveggie,\u201d \u201call vegan,\u201d and \u201cplant based.\u201d<\/p>\n
On September 30, 2019, the court ruled on plaintiffs\u2019 motion for preliminary injunction \u2013 and in doing so had to determine, among other things, whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and whether denying the injunction would cause them irreparable harm.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs state that they are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim because they wish to engage in truthful, non-misleading speech that is prohibited by the statute. This however is precisely the reason the Court finds that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed \u2013 because the statute does not prohibit their speech.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mem. Opinion at 12.<\/p>\n
In making its determination, the court recognized that two days after the law took effect, Missouri\u2019s Department of Agriculture issued guidance that indicated what companies had to do to avoid the product being \u201cmisleading\u201d\u2013 essentially, including a prominent statement on the label (immediately before or after the product name) qualifying the product as \u201cplant based\u201d \u201cveggie\u201d \u201clab grown\u201d or lab created\u201d or \u201cmade from plants.\u201d Examples of these modifiers, however, do not appear in the text of the statute, which forbids \u201cmisrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.\u201d Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7265.494 (7). The State of Missouri, in opposing plaintiffs\u2019 preliminary injunction motion, argued that the statute does not oppose plant-based manufacturers using the term \u201cmeat,\u201d but rather has the \u201ccommon sense understanding\u201d that prohibits the \u201cmisrepresentation\u201d of a plant-based product as meat. Using \u201cveggie\u201d or \u201cplant-based\u201d modifiers, it argued, prevents such a misunderstanding.<\/p>\n
The court found no credible risk of prosecution to Tofurky because its labels \u2013 some of which Tofurky pictured in its Compliant \u2013already include such qualifiers. \u201cThus, plaintiffs have not shown that they are at risk of either prosecution for violating the statute or that there is any need to change their labels or advocacy efforts.\u201d Mem. Opinion at 14. The court also found that an injunction would \u201cinvade [Missouri\u2019s] sovereign authority to enact and enforce its own laws.\u201d Id. <\/em> at 15.<\/p>\nPerhaps Tofurky and The Good Food Institute filed this lawsuit simply to get a judicial determination that Tofurky\u2019s labels already complied with Missouri\u2019s amended law.\u00a0 What remains unclear is whether other manufacturers that The Good Food Institute advises\u00a0 still lack certainty about what type of label could result in criminal prosecution in light of this opinion.\u00a0\u00a0Tofurky and The Good Food Institute have appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Their appellate brief is due on November 25, 2019.<\/p>\n
The Good Food Institute\u2019s website, which advertises the lawsuits it is involved with on its \u201cMedia Statements\u201d page, has not posted an update about the latest development in this litigation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Michelle C. Pardo We previously blogged about the case of Turtle Island Foods, et al. v. Mark Richardson, 2:18-cv-04173, pending in federal court in the Western District of Missouri. Turtle Island Foods, doing business as The Tofurky Company (\u201cTofurky\u201d) which produces plant-based products, together with The Good Food Institute (an organization founded in part … <\/p>\n
Continue reading “Court Rejects Tofurky’s Request for Preliminary Injunction to Halt Enforcement of Missouri’s Meat Advertising Law”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":318,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[44,472,131,466,180,471,190,142,187,289,469,467,175,134,128,470,387,135,468],"ppma_author":[698],"class_list":["post-267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-animal-activist","tag-cattlemen","tag-clean-meat","tag-cultured-meat","tag-dormant-commerce-clause","tag-due-process","tag-fake-meat","tag-false-advertising","tag-first-amendment","tag-good-food-institute","tag-injunction","tag-meat-analogue","tag-michelle-c-pardo","tag-missouri-meat-advertising","tag-plant-based","tag-preliminary-injunction","tag-tofurky","tag-vegan","tag-veggie-burger"],"authors":[{"term_id":698,"user_id":318,"is_guest":0,"slug":"mcpardo","display_name":"Michelle Pardo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/38\/2018\/06\/pardomichelle-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/318"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}