PBFA files federal lawsuit over Oklahoma meat labeling law

Upton’s Naturals, a plant-based protein producer, and the Plant Based Foods Association are suing the state of Oklahoma over a new meat labeling law, calling it a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Doughman Headshot3 Headshot
edwardolive | BigStockPhoto
edwardolive | BigStockPhoto

Upton’s Naturals, a plant-based protein producer, and the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) are suing the state of Oklahoma over a new meat labeling law, calling it a violation of their First Amendment rights.

“Our labels make it perfectly clear that our food is 100% vegan,” said Upton’s Naturals founder, Daniel Staackmann. “But now our meat industry competitors in Oklahoma want to force us to redesign our labels as if our safe, healthy products are potentially harmful. It’s not the first time we’ve had to fight a state law created by our competitors, and we look forward again to defending our First Amendment right to clearly communicate with our customers.”

In 2019, PBFA and Upton’s Naturals successfully challenged a Mississippi meat labeling laws.

Companies now prohibited from misrepresenting food on label

The Oklahoma Meat Consumer Protection Act, which takes effect November 1, would prohibit persons or companies from “advertising or selling food plans or carcasses from engaging in certain misleading or deceptive practices.”

The bill outlines meat as, “Meat means any edible portion of livestock, poultry or captive cervid carcass or part thereof.” Misrepresent is defined as, “the use of any untrue, misleading or deceptive oral or written statement, advertisement, label, display, picture, illustration or sample.”

Other states have similar or proposed legislation, including Arkansas, Missouri, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Mississippi, Tennessee, Indiana and Virginia.

A violation of First Amendment rights

If enacted, Upton’s Naturals would need to create all new labels for their plant-based products, which is something the company cannot afford, the lawsuit claims.

“This law means that…many…retailers, including many independent stores, may no longer be able to carry the many meat alternatives that consumers are increasingly demanding. To deny consumers these products will cause significant economic hardship to Oklahoma retailers, not to mention deprive many Oklahoma residents the options they are seeking, PBFA’s Executive Director Michele Simon, said.

Meat industry responds

“We believe if a product wants to pass itself as beef, pork or meat, then it must be properly labeled so consumers will know exactly what they are purchasing. This language clarifies that “beef” must come from cattle, that “pork” must come from a pig, and that “meat” must come from livestock. We look forward to working with the State of Oklahoma in defending this commonsense law,” said a joint statement on the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association and Oklahoma Pork Council website.

Like what you just read? Sign up now for free to receive the Poultry Future Newsletter.

Page 1 of 180
Next Page