Search

Effects of Restrictive Animal Product Alternative Labeling Laws on Supply-chain Costs

Share with
Or share with link

Short Summary

After conducting expert interviews, we deem it unlikely that the animal products alternative sector (viz., plant-based meat cell-cultured meat companies) will face steep costs due to a regulatory “patchwork” of product label restrictions across US states. Advocates should oppose a federal ban on meat-like terminology, but not a federal requirement for clarificatory language.

Longer summary

  • Plant-based and cell-cultured food products frequently use meat-like vocabulary on their labels (e.g., Impossible ground beef). Meat industry lobbyists argue that meat-like labels mislead consumers into believing that animal product alternatives either contain animal products or have comparable nutritional benefits. On these grounds, they have advocated for either requiring clarificatory language (e.g., plant-based deli slice) or banning meat-like terminology (e.g., almond beverage instead of almond milk).
  • As of January 2025, 17 US states have passed regulations on the labeling language of animal product alternatives. Legal challenges so far suggest that typical labels for animal product alternatives do not violate existing regulations.
  • Nevertheless, in jurisdictions like the US, different states could adopt different labeling restrictions that cannot be jointly satisfied by any one label (e.g., a plant-based alternative must only be described as “plant-based” vs. “vegan”). Such a regulatory patchwork may be burdensome to comply with, even if the content of the regulations themselves are not.
    • In our interpretation, a patchwork does not yet exist in the US, and experts we interviewed did not point to one.
  • Experts we interviewed pointed to a variety of potential harms of a US patchwork (see Summary Table 1 on the next page). Of these, the most concerning was that retailers and distributors would drop animal product alternatives entirely due to the logistical difficulties of working across state lines.
  • However, we speculate that a crisis of this sort is somewhat unlikely, and might spur federal regulation that preempts state laws if it did occur. Indeed, interviewees generally seemed more concerned about a federal ban on dairy terms for plant-based alternatives.
  • A federal law is somewhat likely, possibly first for dairy alternatives and later for meat alternatives. When advocating at the federal level, it is more likely important to prevent a nationwide ban on meat-like terminology than to block a requirement for clarificatory language.

Summary Table 1: Costs, estimated magnitude, and likelihood of occurring

Potential CostMagnitudeLikelihood
Loss due to brand exit and dropped products
(Retailers and distributors would likely drop “difficult” products/brands.)
very large
(confidence: high)
somewhat low
(confidence: low)
Monetary cost of label change (printing, inventory drawdown, marketing, etc.)
Tofurky testified that relabeling all of their products would cost nearly one million dollars (their 2021 net sales were $42.2 million (Poinski, 2023)), which might be devastating for a new startup even if less important for larger companies.
large
(confidence: high)
somewhat low
(confidence: low)
Monetary cost of violations (fines, legal fees of contesting violations)
Liability falls on all producers, distributors, and retailers, but distributors and retailers would likely offload responsibility back to producers wherever possible.
somewhat large
(confidence: somewhat high)
somewhat low
(confidence: low)
Deterrence of entrepreneurship and investment
Experts suggested that it seems unlikely that labeling laws will prevent businesses from starting up because many other regulations or restrictions might have priority.
unclearlow
(confidence: somewhat high)
Monetary cost of advocacy work, including lobbying and litigation
(Future costs are much less certain in magnitude and likelihood.)
small
(confidence: low)
already realized
(confidence: high)
Criminal charges for violationssmall
(confidence: somewhat high)
low
(confidence: somewhat low)
Current laws make more state laws or a federal law more likely, and/or more restrictiveunclearunclear

 

Introduction

Animal product alternatives have become big business, as well as an important tool for many animal advocates in reducing consumption of animal products. However, animal products are also big business, and big players in the meat industry may see animal product alternatives as antagonistic to their economic interests. Many bills to regulate the labeling of animal product alternatives with terms like “meat” or “hamburger” have been proposed, and some have been passed into law.

Labeling restrictions may be harmful because they make the product less appealing to consumers. For example, a requirement to call almond milk an almond “beverage” may obscure the fact that almond milk can adequately substitute for dairy-based milk in a variety of settings. In other cases, limitations in what the label can say may have little impact on consumer demand.

Even when a label restriction does not hinder consumer demand, complying with it can still impose costs on producers. For instance, if the law changes rather suddenly, a company may not be able to use labels that it has already printed. However, perhaps the most onerous regulatory landscape is one with a “patchwork,” where different localities enact potentially conflicting regulations targeting the same issue. Patchworks can occur in jurisdictions like the US and EU, which are composed of multiple states that each have the power to pass their own laws on the same topic, unless expressly forbidden by preempting regulation at a higher legislative level.

In theory, the need to comply with multiple regulatory regimes increases the overhead costs of running a company. Interestingly, researchers have had difficulty demonstrating the harms of a regulatory patchwork over and above the contents of the regulations themselves (Treskon et al., 2021). Hence, we aim to understand whether there are negative effects of a patchwork of labeling restrictions on the producers of animal product alternatives. In particular, we focus on plant-based or cultivated meat in the US, due to different states passing their own labeling restrictions on these products.

We interview experts in animal product alternatives manufacturing, distribution, industry groups, and advocacy organizations, and then organize their responses into data using a combination of inductive and deductive data coding methods. We analyze the data using thematic analysis and report on the patterns in interviewee experiences and opinions. As a secondary output of the project, we provide our conclusions in a framework of key questions for funding decisions around advocacy actions against state labeling laws.

A patchwork of regulation has been observed and studied in many different policy areas, and labeling has been studied extensively. Most closely related to our research, the US passed a national bioengineered foods (more commonly known as genetically modified foods) labeling mandate in 2016 (Caracciolo, 2022a). A regulatory impact assessment (USDA-AMS, 2019) estimating the costs of the law compares several counterfactuals, including a regional scenario based on the state law in Vermont, which at the time of the federal bill’s adoption was the only state law in effect (Alaska, Connecticut, and Maine also passed bills that had yet to take effect) (Bass et al., 2016). To our knowledge, this scenario is the closest to a state patchwork for food labels that has been studied in the literature. The assessment concludes that a patchwork of regulations could create hundreds of millions of dollars in avoidable costs relative to a unified national label (or no label change). The largest costs were administrative costs like understanding the regulation, determining affected products, and developing a compliance strategy. Vermont’s law was never enforced because the federal law preempted it only one month after the state law took effect (Bass et al., 2016). This comparison is not exact due to several differences in circumstances between the animal product alternative and bioengineered labeling situations. The number of products affected by the bioengineered label is much greater than those affected by the animal product alternatives label. On the other hand, many more states have adopted animal product alternatives labeling laws than ever adopted bioengineered laws.

Background

Policy

At the time of publication, 17 states have implemented laws restricting or dictating the type of words used to describe animal product alternatives. To determine whether the current codes create a patchwork of conflicting statutes across states, we gather relevant excerpts from the various statutes. Our list updates Tao and Razick (2023) by including bills passed in late 2023 and 2024. However, our reading of the bills is non-expert and non-exhaustive, and given the extensive scope of all the state codes considered, we have moderate confidence in the conclusions that we draw from the specific wording of state laws.

Some state laws compel producers to use one of several qualifying terms like “plant-based,” “vegan,” or “meatless;” in our reading, no bill requires a single specific term.[1] Nine state codes restrict animal product alternatives from being labeled or represented as meat products; however, the way in which most bills define “represented as” and/or “meat products” is ambiguous enough to allow for substantial court interpretation as to whether an animal product alternative is in violation of these statutes. Some states require certain placement, prominence, or size of such qualifying language. Table 1 below provides key excerpts and sources for all of these details.

These laws do not, in our reading, appear to conflict with each other to create a harmful patchwork, nor did our experts point to any examples of conflicting language in current bills. The apparent lack of action from alternative product companies to change their labels is further evidence of lack of conflict.

Most of the fear of a conflicting patchwork appears to be surrounding potential interpretation of current laws by different courts. The wording of some laws is ambiguous enough to allow for significantly different interpretations in future court challenges. For example, Arkansas’ law prevents animal product alternatives from using “a term that is the same as or similar to a term that has been used or defined historically in reference to a specific agricultural product” (Caracciolo, 2022b), which could be interpreted as banning meat-like terminology entirely. Similarly, while Texas’ code identifies “close proximity,” other states like Iowa and Kansas leave the definition of “close” up to the interpretation of the courts. Yet while a broad court interpretation could be possible, legal challenges up to this point have actually narrowed the scope of most bills rather than broadening it.

Table 1: State animal product alternative labeling bills

State; Statutes with source links; Effective dateKey excerpt[2]Compelled speechRestricted speech
Alabama

Code of Ala. §§ 2-17-10; 2-17-1

August 1, 2019

2-17-1. (13) MISBRANDED. Any carcass, part thereof, meat or meat food product or poultry or poultry food product is misbranded under one or more of the following circumstances:

c. If it is an imitation of another food, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word “imitation” and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated;

2-17-10. A food product that contains cultured animal tissue produced from animal cell cultures outside of the organism from which it is derived may not be labeled as meat or a meat food product.

Imitation foods must be labeled with “imitation.”Cultured products may not be labeled as meat or meat food product.
Arkansas

Ark. Code Ann. §§ 2-1-305; 20-56-209

July 24, 2019

20-56-209. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

(3) If it is an imitation of another food, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word “imitation” and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated;

2-1-305. A person shall not misbrand or misrepresent an agricultural product that is edible by humans, including without limitation by:

5.Representing the agricultural product as a food for which a definition and standard of identity has been provided by regulations under § 20-56-219 or by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., as it existed on January 1, 2019, unless:

a.The agricultural product conforms to the definition and standard; and

b.The label of the agricultural product bears the name of the food specified in the definition and standard and includes the common names of optional ingredients other than spices, flavoring, and coloring present in the food as regulations require;

6.Representing the agricultural product as meat or a meat product when the agricultural product is not derived from harvested livestock, poultry, or cervids;

8.Representing the agricultural product as beef or a beef product when the agricultural product is not derived from a domesticated bovine;

9.Representing the agricultural product as pork or a pork product when the agricultural product is not derived from a domesticated swine;

10.Utilizing a term that is the same as or similar to a term that has been used or defined historically in reference to a specific agricultural product;

Imitations must say the word “imitation.”[3]Non-meat products cannot be represented as meat products.
Georgia

O.C.G.A. §§ 26-2-28; 26-2-152

December 31, 2020

26-2-28. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

(3) It is an imitation of another food for which a definition and standard of identity have been prescribed by regulations as provided by Code Section 26-2-35; or if it is an imitation of another food that is not subject to paragraph (7) of this Code section, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word “imitation” and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated;

26-2-152. It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, company, or corporation to label, advertise, or otherwise represent any food produced or sold in this state as meat or any product from an animal unless each product is clearly labeled by displaying the following terms prominently and conspicuously[4] on the front of the package, labeling cell cultured products with “lab-grown,” “Lab-created,” or “grown in a lab” and plant based products as “vegetarian,” “veggie,” “vegan,” “plant based,” or other similar term indicating that the product is plant based and does not include the flesh, offal, or other by-product of any part of the carcass of a live animal that has been slaughtered.

Imitations must say the word “imitation.”

Packaging must say “vegetarian”, “vegan”, “plant-based”, or similar.

NA
Iowa

2025 IA Code Title IV 137A; 137E

July 1, 2024

137A.3 Misbranded food product.

A food product is misbranded as an egg product if all of the following apply:

1. The food product is a fabricated-egg product or the food product contains a fabricated-egg product.

2. The food product is offered for sale or sold by a food processing plant.

3. a. A label that is part of or placed on the package or other container storing the food product includes an identifying egg term.

b. Paragraph “a” does not apply if the label contains a conspicuous and prominent qualifying term in close proximity to an identifying egg term.

137E.3 Misbranded food product.

A food product is misbranded as a meat product if all of the following apply:

1. a. Except as provided in paragraph “b”, the food product is a manufactured-protein food product or the food product contains a manufactured-protein food product.

b. The food product is not misbranded as a meat product only because it contains a trace amount of one or more plant-protein food products as determined by the department.

2. The food product is offered for sale or sold by a food processing plant.

3. a. A label that is part of or placed on the package or other container storing the food product includes an identifying meat term.

b. Paragraph “a” does not apply if the label contains a conspicuous and prominent qualifying term in close proximity to an identifying meat term.

Packaging must say “does not contain meat”, “meatless”, “egg-free”, “vegan”, “imitation”, “plant-based”, etc.NA
Kansas

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-665

July 1, 2022

65-665. Food deemed misbranded, when.

A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

(c) If it is an imitation of another food, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word “imitation” and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated. For the purposes of this section, “imitation” means the same as provided in 21 C.F.R. § 101.3(e), as in effect on January 1, 2022. In such definition, references to section 403(c) of the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act mean this subsection (c), and references to the commissioner mean the Kansas secretary of agriculture.

(m) If it is a meat analog and:

(1) Its labeling utilizes an identifiable meat term; and

(2) the labeling does not have a disclaimer in a prominent and conspicuous font size, in close proximity to the identifiable meat term, stating one of the following: (A) “This product does not contain meat”; (B) “meatless”; (C) “meat-free”; (D) “vegan”; (E) “veggie”; (F) “vegetarian”; (G) “vegetable”; (H) “plant-based”; or (I) a disclaimer equivalent to (A) through (H), as determined by the secretary through rules and regulations. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a menu or menu board or to food that can be defined as “imitation” under subsection (c) and complies with the provisions of such subsection.

Imitations must say the word “imitation.”

Packaging must say “does not contain meat”, “meatless”, “vegan”, “plant-based”, etc.

NA
Kentucky

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 217.035

June 27, 2019

217.035. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

(3)If it is an imitation of another food for which a definition and standard of identity has been prescribed by regulations as provided by KRS 217.135; or if it is an imitation of another food that is not subject to subsection (7) of this section, unless its label bears in type of uniform size and prominence, the word, imitation, and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated

(15) If it purports to be or is represented as meat or a meat product and it contains any cultured animal tissue produced from in vitro animal cell cultures outside of the organism from which it is derived.

Imitations must say the word “imitation.”Products with any cultured tissue cannot purport to be meat.
Louisiana

La. Rev. Stat. §§ 3:4744, 40:608

October 1, 2020

40:608. A food is considered to be misbranded if it has been found to be such by any department of the United States government, or:

(3) If it is an imitation of another food and its label fails to bear, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word “imitation” and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated.

3:4744. B. No person shall intentionally misbrand or misrepresent any food product as an agricultural product through any activity including:

(2) Selling a food product under the name of an agricultural product.

(3) Representing a food product as an agricultural product for which a definition and standard of identity has been provided by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq., unless:

(a) The food product conforms to the definition and standard.

(4) Representing a food product as meat or a meat product when the food product is not derived from a harvested beef, pork, poultry, alligator, farm-raised deer, turtle, domestic rabbit, crawfish, or shrimp carcass.

(6) Representing a food product as beef or a beef product when the food product is not derived from a domesticated bovine.

(7) Representing a food product as pork or a pork product when the food product is not derived from a domesticated swine.

(8) Representing a food product as poultry when the food product is not derived from domesticated birds.

(9) Utilizing a term that is the same as or deceptively similar to a term that has been used or defined historically in reference to a specific agricultural product.

Imitations must say the word “imitation.”Plant-based products cannot purport to be meat, nor use a product that is “deceptively similar” to a historically defined specific agricultural product.
Mississippi

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-29-9; 75-35-15

July 1, 2019

75-29-9. An article shall be deemed to be misbranded:

First.- If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the name of another article.

75-35-15. (4) No item or product subject to this article shall be sold or offered for sale by any person, firm, or corporation, under any name or other marking or labeling which is false or misleading, or in any container of a misleading form or size, but established trade names and other marking and labeling and containers which are not false or misleading and which are approved by the commissioner, are permitted. A food product that contains cultured animal tissue produced from animal cell cultures outside of the organism from which it is derived shall not be labeled as meat or a meat food product. A plant-based or insect-based food product shall not be labeled as meat or a meat food product.

Imitations must say the word “imitation.”Plant-based and cultured products shall not be labeled as meat.
Missouri

Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 196.075; 265.494

August 28, 2018

196.075. Food, when deemed misbranded. — A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

(3) If it is an imitation of another food, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word, “imitation”, and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated;

265.494. No person advertising, offering for sale or selling all or part of a carcass or food plan[5] shall engage in any misleading or deceptive practices, including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following:

Misrepresenting the cut, grade, brand or trade name, or weight or measure of any product, or misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry

Imitations must say the word “imitation.”[6]Plant-based and cultured products shall not be labeled as meat.
Montana

Mont. Code Ann. § 50-31-203

October 1, 2019

50-31-203. Food is misbranded if:

(3) it is an imitation of another food for which a definition and standard of identity has been prescribed by regulations as provided by 50-31-201 or if it is an imitation of another food that is not subject to subsection (7) of this section, unless its label bears in type of uniform size and prominence the word imitation and, immediately after that word, the name of the food imitated;

[nb we can’t find the prescribed foodstuffs just by reading statue law; they are determined by regulators empowered by statute law]

(14) it is a cell-cultured edible product labeled as meat but does not meet the definition of meat in 81-9-217. A cell-cultured edible product derived from meat muscle cells, fat cells, connective tissue, blood, or other meat components is not considered to be misbranded if it is labeled in accordance with 50-31-103 to indicate it is derived from those cells, tissues, blood, or components.

(d) if it is an imitation of a meat product, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word “imitation” and immediately thereafter the name of the food being imitated

Imitation products must say “imitation.”Cultured meat products cannot purport to be meat.
North Dakota

N.D. Cent. Code §§ 4.1-31-05.1; 19-02.1

August 1, 2019

19-02.1-10. A food must be deemed to be misbranded:

3. If it is an imitation of another food for which a definition and standard of identity has been prescribed by regulations as provided by section 19-02.1-08 or if it is an imitation of another food that is not subject to subsection 7, unless its label bears in type of uniform size and prominence the word “imitation” and immediately thereafter the name of the food imitated.

4.1-31-05.1 and 19-02.1-12.1. A person may not advertise, offer for sale, sell, or misrepresent cell-cultured protein as a meat food product. A cell-cultured food product:

a. May not be packaged in the same, or deceptively similar, packaging as a meat food product; and

b. Must be labeled as a cell-cultured food product.

Imitation products must say “imitation.”

Cell-cultured food products must be labeled as such.[7]

Cell-culture food products can’t be packaged in same or deceptively similar packaging.
Oklahoma

Okla. Stat. § 63-1-1110

November 1, 2020

63-1-1110. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

(c) if it is an imitation of another food, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word “Imitation” and immediately thereafter the name of the food imitated.

“Meat” means any edible portion of livestock or part thereof.

No person advertising, offering for sale or selling meat shall engage in any misleading or deceptive practices […] product packaging for plant-based items shall not be considered in violation of the provisions of this paragraph so long as the packaging displays that the product is derived from plant-based sources in type that is uniform in size and prominence to the name of the product.

Imitation products must say “imitation.”

Packaging must show the product is derived from plant-based sources in type that is uniform in size and prominence to the name of the product.

NA
South Carolina

S.C. Code Ann. § 39-25-110; 47-17-510

May 16, 2019

39-25-110. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

(c) If it is an imitation of another food unless its label bears in type of uniform size and prominence, the word, “imitation,” and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated.

47-17-510. A person who advertises, offers for sale, or sells all or part of a carcass shall not engage in any misleading or deceptive practices, labeling, or misrepresenting a product as “meat” or “clean meat” that is cell-cultured meat/protein, or is not derived from harvested production livestock, poultry, fish, or crustaceans.

Imitation products must say “imitation.”Meat sellers cannot represent cultured products as “meat” or “clean meat.”
South Dakota

S.D. Codified Laws §§ 39-4-8; 39-4-26

July 1, 2019

39-4-8. Imitation or unauthorized use of distinctive name as misbranding.

For the purpose of this title a food product shall be deemed to be misbranded if it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of any other food product.

39-4-26. A food product shall be deemed to be misbranded if the product is labeled or branded in a false, deceptive, or misleading manner that intentionally misrepresents the product as a meat food product as defined in § 39-5-6, a meat by-product as defined in § 39-5-6, or as poultry.

[nb we can’t find the prescribed foodstuffs just by reading statue law; they are determined by regulators empowered by statute law]

NAImitation products cannot be sold under the distinctive name of a product.

Non-meat products cannot be intentionally represented as meat products (or poultry).

Texas

TX Health & Safety Code § 431.082

September 1, 2023

431.082. MISBRANDED FOOD. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

(d) if it is an imitation of another food, unless its label bears, in prominent type of uniform size, the word “imitation” and immediately thereafter the name of the food imitated;

(d-1) if it is an analogue product of meat, a meat food product, poultry, a poultry product, an egg product, or fish, unless its label bears in prominent type equal to or greater in size than the surrounding type and in close proximity[8] to the name of the product one of the following:

(1) “analogue”;

(2) “meatless”;

(3) “plant-based”;

(4) “made from plants”; or

(5) a similar qualifying term or disclaimer intended to clearly communicate to a consumer the contents of the product;

Imitation products must say “imitation”

Packaging must say product is analogue, meatless, plant-based, or similar

NA
West Virginia

W. V. Code § 19-39-2

June 7, 2024

19-39-2. (a) A food product is misbranded:

(3) If it is an imitation of a food, unless its label bears, in prominent type, the word “imitation” and immediately before or after the name of the food imitated;

(4) If it is an analogue product, unless its label bears in prominent type immediately before or after the name of the product one of the following:

(A) “Analogue”;

(B) “Meatless”;

(C) “Plant-based”;

(D) “Made from plants”; or

(E) A similar, accurate qualifying term or disclaimer intended to clearly communicate to a consumer the contents of the product;

(5) If it is a cell-cultured product, unless its label bears in prominent type immediately before or after the name of the product using one of the following:

(A) “Cell-cultured”;

(B) “Lab-grown”; or

(C) A similar, accurate qualifying term or disclaimer intended to clearly communicate to a consumer the contents of the product;

Imitations must be labeled with “imitation.”

Plant-based and cultured products must be labeled with qualifying language.

NA
Wyoming

Wyo. Stat. § 35-7-119

July 1, 2020

35-7-119. No person shall […] Include the term “meat” or any synonymous term for meat or a specific animal species in labeling, advertising or other sales promotion unless the product:

(A) Is consistent with the definition of meat in W.S. 35-7-119(e)(iii)(A), which is

(ii) Cell cultured or plant based products not consistent with the definition of meat in subparagraph (iii)(A) of this subsection and not derived from harvested livestock, poultry, wildlife or exotic livestock as those terms are defined in W.S. 11-26-101(a), 11-32-101(a)(iv), 23-1-101(a)(xiii) and 23-1-102(a)(xvi), shall clearly label cell cultured products as “containing cell cultured product” and clearly label plant based products as “vegetarian”, “veggie”, “vegan”, “plant based” or other similar term indicating that the product is plant based;

Cultured must be labeled “containing cell cultured product” and plant-based must be labeled “vegetarian”, “veggie”, “vegan”, “plant-based”, or similar.NA

State laws could be enforced with a variety of mechanisms: (a) officially through legal action initiated by various different levels of government (including state and county), (b) initiated by individual attorneys and private citizens, or (c) unofficially through inspector or attorney threats to businesses (usually small businesses) in person and off the record. As of this publication, no enforcement actions on record have occurred. One expert suggested that the lack of enforcement is due official regulators’ unwillingness to enforce bills with ambiguous language, and another expert pointed to legal challenges that have narrowed the scope by ruling that typical animal product alternatives are already in compliance with extant laws.

California’s Proposition 65 (which requires labels for carcinogenic chemicals) may provide an example of the future of enforcement. Per an anonymous interviewee who worked in California, attorneys will walk the aisles of grocery stores looking for labels in violation of the law so they can hopefully get a big pay out either through a lawsuit or even an out of court settlement. However, our anonymous interviewee suggested that California courts may be less eager to take up these cases after many years (since 1986) of lawsuits.

Federal laws were outside of the original scope of this project; however, interviewees frequently brought up concerns about potential future federal legislation on their own. Currently only plant-based dairy has been addressed federally. A bill known as the Dairy Pride Act (GovTrack, 2023a) has been introduced in Congress every year since 2018, attempting to ban the use of dairy names (like “milk”, “yogurt”, etc.) for plant-based dairy alternatives. While this bill has yet to pass, it does appear to be of concern to most of our interviewees.

Industry

This brief industry background draws heavily from the expert report written by Julie Emmett, senior director of marketplace development at Plant Based Foods Association, in testimony for Plant Based Foods Association v. Stitt, 5:20-cv-00938 (2024).

Producers/manufacturers rely on downstream distributors and retail buyers to get their products on retail shelves and in the hands of consumers. Once products are relinquished to the distributors and retailers, the producers no longer have control of where the products go either geographically or in the supply chain. Producers must demonstrate demand for the product before distributors or retailers will agree to distribute them, because warehouse space is highly competitive. For products already being distributed, any reduction in demand as indicated by reduced sales volume of a barcode could, at least temporarily, result in the product being dropped by the distributor/retailer. Creating state-specific packaging would require splitting a single barcode into multiple new codes, each of which would require individually dedicated warehouse space with unique distribution logistics that may require additional staff to manage. Retailers, who hold the majority of the market power in the grocery supply chain, have stated that they would not undertake the logistics to distribute state-specific products, nor would they expect to be asked to do this (Emmett, par. 39). According to several of our expert interviewees, these factors combined might brand animal product alternatives as “difficult” in the eyes of the distributor, and therefore easier to drop from the distribution roster.

To the best of our knowledge (we are not attorneys), any member of the supply chain could be liable for violations, including distributors and retailers. However, a few of our interviewees noted that distributors and retailers would likely offload the liability back to the producer, perhaps by building waived liability into distribution contracts. Further, due to extremely thin grocery sector margins, any monetary costs of violations for surviving products will be passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher prices.

Methods

We investigated the research question using expert interviews and coded transcripts summarized with thematic analysis. We interviewed nine experts including manufacturers, legal experts, policy experts, and distributors from across the private and non-profit animal product alternatives industries, some of whom asked to remain off the record.

Two researchers coded the interview transcripts and developed the themes using an inductive/deductive hybrid thematic analysis approach that allowed us to both incorporate the funder’s theoretical framework and explore the data. We wrote initial interview questions and developed a priori codes based on these questions; later, we added exploratory codes as we reviewed and coded the transcripts. We organized these codes into themes, of which we present those key to our overall labeling costs narrative in the Results section. We discuss our conclusions within a framework of key questions whose answers could inform funding decisions for advocacy actions to resist state-level laws. The full codebook of themes, organized into a priori and exploratory codes, and a detailed explanation of interview and coding methods are provided in the Appendix.

Results

The most commonly mentioned topics across all the interviews—federal regulation and guidelines, unilateral actions from distributors/retailers, and consumer demand—were surprising insofar as they went beyond our initial project scope. Other important—and in scope—themes include direct monetary costs of changing labels, cost of violations and legal challenges, and setting precedent for other laws. These themes will provide a starting point for answering the decision-relevant key questions in the Discussion section that follows.

We present our results with the following caveats. Our overall confidence in our research is somewhat high (as opposed to very high); in the results below, we specify our confidence in individual findings where appropriate.

  1. The time constraints around this project (around 480 researcher hours spread over four months) restrict our research methods to expert interviews with a small convenience sample of experts.
    1. Notably, our estimates of cost magnitude and likelihood are qualitative and based on our intuition from interviewing the sample of experts, rather than estimated from data.
  2. The complexity of the issue would benefit from a multidisciplinary team of researchers. None of the coauthors are lawyers, and therefore our description of details in bills is necessarily brief and potentially imprecise.

Potential impacts

We rank the potential impacts of these policies, both direct and indirect, according to guesstimated cost magnitudes and the likelihood of the impact being realized. Figure 1 shows our qualitative guesses about these rankings. Where available, we discuss the mechanism and cause of each impact and any moderators (e.g., the willingness of regulators to enforce these laws moderates the monetary cost of violations).

Loss due to brand exit and dropped products

Magnitude: (very) large (confidence: high)

Likelihood: somewhat low (confidence: low)

One of the most common and surprising themes from the interviews is the losses to producers that could arise if products or even entire brands are dropped by distributors or retailers. The experts indicated that dropped products or brands would essentially shutter the brands or possibly the whole industry. Specifically, Christine Lagally of Rebellyous estimated roughly that each dropped barcode could represent $100K lost revenue per year, and Julie Emmett testified that a patchwork would prompt distributors and retailers to “drop ‘difficult’ products entirely” (Emmett, par 49). Such loss of revenue would be much larger than the other potential impacts, especially given the current growing size of the animal product alternatives industry. Not only would this outcome harm producers, but consumers would also suffer from loss of product choice and possibly higher prices due to fewer competitors.

We estimate that such an existential crisis is somewhat unlikely for a variety of interacting reasons. Products will not be dropped if producers are not required to comply with conflicting state laws, and currently, no punitive actions have been levied as a result of noncompliance. Alternative product producers have launched legal challenges against restrictive labeling laws, which have often resulted in courts narrowing the scope of the law in the plaintiff’s favor. The ambiguity of the various bills leaves open the risk that future courts could decide to interpret a bill broadly and ban products with labels that have been interpreted as allowed in other states, which could potentially be threat enough to cause dropped products. However, since these risks currently exist and yet evidence of dropped products is scant, we suspect that the risk impact is also unlikely.

Monetary cost of label change (printing, inventory drawdown, marketing …)

Magnitude: large (confidence: high)

Likelihood: somewhat low (confidence: low)

The monetary cost of changing the label is arguably the most direct cost of labeling laws: designing, printing, and marketing new labels; selling through (or disposing of) inventory of products with old labels; and disposing of old packaging inventory. Jamie Athos, CEO of Tofurky, testified before several courts that Tofurky would spend up to a million dollars for a nationwide marketing change to all of its large national product line (Flynn, 2023). In our interview, Athos confirmed an estimated range of six to ten cents per unit to print any kind of label for his products. These one time, per unit costs are independent of design, marketing, and inventory disposals; Athos estimated a range of inventory value between $25,000 and $250,000 for a three-month back stock of all their products. Athos and other experts suggested that working through or disposing of inventory, depending on how quickly producers were required to comply with the laws, could constitute a large portion of these monetary label changing costs.

We estimate that these costs are somewhat unlikely to occur, as with many other costs in our list. It seems clear that companies would need to relabel their products if governments and courts started to enforce the laws. However, given that several laws have been in place for several years and companies have not yet relabeled their products, this inaction might signal that the companies feel doubtful that their current labels will be deemed in violation of laws. For these reasons, it seems somewhat unlikely that labeling changes might suddenly occur as a result of the existing laws. Should future laws pass that seem more likely to be enforced, companies may have enough advanced knowledge to avoid the inventory drawdown portion of this cost.

Monetary cost of violations (fines, legal fees of contesting violations)

Magnitude: somewhat large (confidence: somewhat high)

Likelihood: somewhat low (confidence: low)

Violations may be enforced by official regulators, eager lawyers, individual government actors, or private citizens. Several laws stipulate fines ranging from $500 to $25,000 per violation per day depending on the state, and legal fees spent on contesting violations could be quite large (although none of our experts provided estimates of such fees). According to one of our sources, California’s Proposition 65 has been enforced seldomly by official regulators and more often by “ambulance chasing attorneys,” so called by an anonymous interviewee. These lawyers will deliberately seek out offending packaging to bring lawsuits, often against smaller companies that the lawyers view as easier targets. Many of these lawsuits are settled out of court for cheaper than litigating, and the settlement costs could add up quickly if more than one attorney sues.

We estimate that these costs are also somewhat unlikely to occur. Because enforcement has not yet happened and legal challenges have resulted in narrowing the applicability of the laws, it seems unlikely that enforcement actions might change drastically now. Even if enforcement actions did start to increase, it seems likely that companies would challenge the law or the violations before having to pay any fines.

Deterrence of entrepreneurship and investment

Magnitude: unclear

Likelihood: low (confidence: somewhat high)

An uncertain regulatory environment can have a chilling effect on the sector in at least two ways. First, investors may worry that a company will struggle to comply with restrictions that appear to be on the horizon. Companies that are not yet profitable—often newer companies that may have innovative ideas—depend on positive investor sentiment to remain solvent. Second, companies may hesitate to develop or launch a product if they cannot get clarification on whether it would receive pushback from regulators.

Several experts suggested that labeling laws would be low on the list of barriers to starting up a company, and thus unlikely to prevent producers from launching a brand. However, we did not interview any investors, and so we are unsure about their perspective. Possibly, the looming possibility of a patchwork will reinforce a general sense that animal productive alternatives face headwinds that are difficult to overcome, which may be sufficient to deter investment.

Monetary cost of advocacy work, including lobbying and litigation

Magnitude: small (confidence: low)

Likelihood: high (since already realized) (confidence: high)

We did not ask interviewees about the cost of lobbying and litigation that has already been realized. A monetary estimate could easily be gathered from organizations willing to share such information, which would help forecast how much future costs could be on a per-hour basis. It is much less certain how much advocacy the animal product alternatives industry will need to engage in the future. However, we suspect that future advocacy spending will only be large if truly existential legal threats become more likely, in which case they would represent money well spent.

Criminal charges

Magnitude: small (confidence: somewhat high)

Likelihood: low (confidence: somewhat low)

Missouri is the only state law with criminal charges that have survived legal challenges (Brown, 2022). Since the laws aren’t being violated and it seems unlikely that any future charges would stick to a producer without a challenge, the expected value of this cost seems small. The cost of a possible year in Missouri prison (Poletta, 2018) may be significant enough to deter producers from using offending packaging, which would put the magnitude of these costs closer to loss of future products.

Setting precedent for future laws

Magnitude: unclear

Likelihood: unclear

A theme discussed fairly often is the potential for state labeling laws to set a precedent for other state and national laws restricting labeling language, perhaps even creating more sophisticated restrictions that disproportionately affect plant-based and cultivated producers.

The cost of setting a precedent for future state laws—especially multiple, interacting laws—is very unclear, as we have shown in the discussion of costs of current laws above. The cost of a federal law would likely be measured in a Regulatory Impact Analysis that would be conducted as part of a federal law adoption process. Julie Emmett testified about her experience with Albertsons during the transition period to compliance with the federal non-GMO labeling standard, effective in 2019. She noted that the two-year transition was complicated and required a great deal of resources. This suggests that the cost of a future federal law could be high.

The likelihood of impacting future state laws is unclear, given the many moving pieces involved in the policy adoption process. However, one expert suggested that enough conflicting state laws often leads to a federal law intending to avoid a costly patchwork. The federal non-GMO labeling standard, adopted in 2018 and effective 2025, is a recent and closely analogous case study of the state patchwork-to-federal standard pipeline.

Discussion

The impacts above give rise to several open questions. We use those questions, and our initial information toward answering them, as a framework for making decisions about funding more legal challenges.

Given that current harm is probably not happening, is future harm (especially enforcement) likely?

Current answer: Somewhat likely only if further states introduce laws that have more specific prohibitions than what states have passed so far

To answer further: Short project

To our knowledge, none of the laws have been violated nor enforced to date (and no company has directly attributed label changes to any of the laws), so we know that on-record harm has not yet happened. Off-record harm so far seems unlikely given the anecdotes that we gathered from interviews. While the language in various state laws doesn’t always obviously conflict, there is a chance that courts could interpret the bills to be conflicting. So far, they haven’t.

Given the above, what is the likelihood of courts interpreting broadly at this point? If the likelihood is low, the expected value of direct costs from relabeling, violation fees, and dropped products or brands is low but the indirect costs or second-order effects (see below) may still be in play. Questions to ask in further research are:

  • How much does the threat of enforcement from state attorneys general, other government regulators, and private citizens or companies impact producers’ current decisions? If we can’t explicitly measure the impact of this threat, can we get a sense through anecdotal means of the lost investment or brands or products that have not been realized because of the potential patchwork?
  • Could California’s Proposition 65 provide an example of the kinds, magnitudes, and likelihood of on-the-ground enforcement?

Reviewers asked this follow up question: If current harm is not happening, why do these bills keep getting passed? Some initial answers:

  • Animal agriculture folks have financially supported the politicians, and politicians may be more willing to pass laws in the industry’s favor.
  • The bills may be easy to pass in areas with strong animal agricultural presence, where constituents may view these bills favorably.

Thus, future harm from enforcement seems to depend on future state laws with more specific language getting adopted. Our investigation suggests that future harm from a state patchwork is somewhat likely: it seems likely that states currently without labeling restrictions could eventually introduce them, and realizing that previous state restrictions have had little practical impact, lobbyists may push for more substantive restrictions that would harm animal product alternatives. As more states pass legislation and increase the chance of a patchwork, the likelihood of a federal law increases. Harm from a federal law seems to be the next most plausible path to harm in the eyes of many of our interviewees.

If the laws do get enforced, will companies suffer serious financial harm or even cease operations completely?

Current answer: Probably yes

To answer further: Short project

Our research shows that distributors and retailers have the market power to determine where products end up, so if courts start enforcing these laws and downstream actors suddenly need to comply with laws, this compliance will be too risky and logistically costly for them to keep the products in their stock rosters. The risk to downstream actors will be especially great if they are liable for violations due to marketing in a national market, where they cannot control which labels reach regulated states over social media and national websites.

Reviewers asked a follow up question: How might Beyond Meat and Impossible be affected by these labeling laws, given their position as high profile companies with novel products? Some initial answers (that would benefit from further research) are:

  • We could not find any public information about challenges (legal or otherwise) to Beyond Meat’s labeling using “meat” terms. However, they have settled a lawsuit for false advertising of their protein content, which may indicate a willingness to avoid litigation.
  • Impossible has even less online information regarding their views on how labeling policy might impact their products.
  • Future research on this question might benefit greatly from interviews with policy experts employed by both of these influential companies.

Have past legal challenges worked to reduce the harm of the patchwork?

Current answer: Legal challenges have narrowed the scope, but not removed the laws completely

To answer further: Fact check with legal scholar

Most lawsuits challenging the laws have been dismissed or narrowed the scope of the law. Therefore, what we might call “successful” challenges haven’t achieved the common advocate goal of completely overturning the laws. However, these challenges did remove some of the ambiguity in a way that was beneficial to the animal product alternatives industry. For example, in the case against Missouri’s rule, the court ruled that Tofurky’s label—which is fairly standard in terms of layout, design, and qualifying language—was unlikely to be confused as “misrepresenting a product as meat” (Turtle Island Foods, SPC v. Thompson, No. 19-3154, 8th Cir. 2021). In that regard, the challenges did improve the legislative landscape by providing an explicit example of a label in compliance with an existing bill.

Reviewers asked a follow up question: Would the same legal arguments work against enforcement actions as opposed to challenges?

  • Examining legal arguments is out of scope for our initial project.
  • A policy or legal expert might be able to quickly answer this question (or may already have the answer). We suggest speaking with Amanda Howell at ALDF.

If a federal labeling law seems likely, could these same legal strategies work against a future federal law?

Current answer: Unclear

To answer further: Short project

Challenges to state laws have often employed a free speech argument. However, if the DAIRY PRIDE Act is enacted federally, the free speech argument may not apply to the nutritional labeling requirement at the heart of the bill.

Reviewers asked a follow up question: What is the likelihood of a federal law passing within, say, 50 years?

  • A federal plant-based dairy labeling law similar to the Dairy Pride Act seems most likely to pass first. GovTrack predicts that the current 2023 version of the Dairy Pride Acts has a 5% (GovTrack, 2023b) and 17% (GovTrack, 2023a) chance of being enacted by the Senate and House, respectively. These numbers come after dairy industry lobbying since 2008. Several of our interviewees mentioned their fear of the bill passing, indicating that they thought 2025 would be the year for adoption because of the election year momentum and certain personnel changes in Congress. However, these predictions were made before the November 2024 election, and Trump’s presidency plus Republican party control of both Congressional houses could change earlier predictions.
  • We need more information and expertise to predict whether federal plant-based meat (as opposed to dairy) labeling laws are likely, since federal regulations were out of scope of this initial project. We may find some useful examples from other labeling policy development, such as the non-GMO labeling (Suri & Ellixson, 2016) and organic standards (Clarke, 2021) state-to-federal transition. Further research would benefit from speaking to Non-GMO Project policy experts, who might be helpful for prediction of whether the current patchwork might become a unified federal law.

Another follow up question: Would animal product alternatives companies prefer a federal law over a patchwork of state laws?

  • Our interviewees suggested that while a federal legal restriction on labels is not ideal, at the very least a unified law would provide a single compliance target and might be easier to fight than multiple state laws.
  • Some interviewees suggested that a solid coalition of groups (including very large multinationals) could help to develop a standard favorable for the animal product alternatives industry. However, an interviewee who experienced the federal non-GMO labeling law development noted that the most well-funded groups will likely have the most influence on the final bill. For this reason, they mentioned that the fragility of the non-GMO labeling coalition contributed to the relative weakness (from the perspective of anti-GMO advocates) of the final federal bioengineering bill.

Would lack of meat-like labeling affect consumer understanding or purchases?

Current answer: Bans on meat terminology are unlikely to have a large effect for any one individual, the negative consequences for animal product alternatives may still be significant when aggregated across an entire market for perpetuity.

To answer further: Broad research agenda, but solid base already

We reviewed four experiments, all conducted with online opt-in samples, that examined how the inclusion versus omission of meat-based language affects the understanding and desirability of plant-based alternatives (DeMuth et al., 2023; Evirgen et al., 2024; Feltz & Feltz, 2019; Marshall et al., 2022). While the findings differ a bit based on the methodology and the product, our general impression is that about a third of consumers are either unsure or mistaken about whether plant-based alternatives contain animal products. Concerns about consumer confusion are not entirely unfounded.

On the other hand, “confused” consumers tend to be poorly informed about the nutritional properties of the animal-based products as well, suggesting that generally low knowledge about food products may be responsible for misunderstandings about plant-based alternatives, rather than misleading labels per se. Indeed, removing meat-based labels did not reduce the belief that plant-based alternatives might contain meat, and may have even increased misunderstandings about nutritional contents. Moreover, removing the meat-based label can reduce the desirability of plant-based products, perhaps because their appropriate use case is no longer clear.

Adding a clarificatory label (e.g., the V-Label) reduces the percentage of people who are confused about whether a plant-based alternative contains animal-products. (Many people are still confused even with the V-label, again reinforcing the impression that many consumers have little interest in or knowledge about what is in food.) Thus, there is some merit to the idea that requiring clarification language would improve the consumer experience.

Overall, plant-based advocates probably should not oppose efforts to require clarification labels. Indeed, all of our experts mentioned the plant-based industry’s desire for label clarity. Plant-based products are generally already compliant, and introducing a legal standard could benefit the alternative proteins sector by eliminating uncertainty about the prospect of an unfavorable regulatory landscape. Instead, advocates should focus more narrowly on ensuring that the regulations are uniform across jurisdictions. Secondarily, there is value in opposing bans on meat-based language to ensure that consumers understand that plant-based alternatives can play a similar role in recipes that are traditionally fulfilled by animal-based products.


Acknowledgements

This report is a project of Rethink Priorities—a think-and-do tank dedicated to informing decisions made by high-impact organizations and funders across various cause areas. Samara Mendez conducted the interviews and wrote the report; Ben Stevenson assisted with analysis of the interview data; William McAuliffe oversaw the project. Thanks to Jacob Peacock and Abraham Rowe for guidance on the scope, Neil Dullaghan for feedback, Shaan Shaikh for copy editing, and Urszula Zarosa for assistance with publishing the report online. A special thanks to all of our interviewees for lending their time and expertise generously. Open Philanthropy provided funding for this report, but does not necessarily endorse our conclusions.

Bibliography

Bass, C. F., Maples, R. Y., & Slomowitz, A. (2016, September 6). President Obama Signs GMO Labeling Bill into Law. The National Law Review. https://natlawreview.com/article/president-obama-signs-gmo-labeling-bill-law

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brown, H. (2022, September 28). What’s in a Name? Updates on Plant-Based Product Labeling Regulations. Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI). https://perma.cc/LQ2W-4VMQ

Caracciolo, J. (2022a, January 4). Focus on Food: Bioengineered Foods Now Require Disclosure. National Agricultural Law Center. https://perma.cc/V8CQ-DGZJ

Caracciolo, J. (2022b, October 25). Truth in Labeling Laws(uits) – Update on Arkansas. National Agricultural Law Center. https://perma.cc/4R4G-4SFY

Clarke, R. (2021, October 15). Organic Farming: History, Timeline, and Impact. Treehugger. https://perma.cc/VKB5-KDFX

Delve. (n.d.). Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Delve Tools. Retrieved December 9, 2024, from https://delvetool.com

DeMuth, B., Malone, T., McFadden, B. R., & Wolf, C. A. (2023). Choice effects associated with banning the word “meat” on alternative protein labels. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 45(1), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13319

Evirgen, F. S., Mirzaoğlu, G., & Kurt, G. (2024). Evaluating consumer confusion: The case of labeling restrictions on plant-based cheese in Türkiye. https://perma.cc/2AYD-UG9R

Feltz, S., & Feltz, A. (2019). Consumer Accuracy at Identifying Plant-based and Animal-based Milk Items. Food Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00051-7

Flynn, D. (2023, April 21). The Tofurky brand and Louisana are both winners in the labeling law challenge. Food Safety News. https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=226577

GovTrack. (2023a, March 15). Summary of H.R. 1462: DAIRY PRIDE Act. GovTrack.Us. https://perma.cc/J3UQ-5775

GovTrack. (2023b, March 15). Summary of S. 549: DAIRY PRIDE Act. GovTrack.Us. https://perma.cc/WXZ5-M2H2

Marshall, D., Bano, F., & Banas, K. (2022). A meaty issue: The effect of meat-related label terminology on the willingness to eat vegetarian foods. Food Quality and Preference, 96, 104413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104413

Otter AI. (2024). Otter.ai—AI Meeting Note Taker & Real-time AI Transcription. https://otter.ai/

Pitkoff, J. (2021). State Bans on Labeling for Alternative Meat Products: Free Speech and Consumer Protection. Environmental Law Journal, 29(2), 297–348. https://nyuelj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Pitkoff-State-Bans-on-Labeling-for-Alternative-Meat-Products-1.pdf

Plant Based Foods Association v. Stitt, 5:20-Cv-00938 (July 3, 2024). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18443123/plant-based-foods-association-v-stitt/

Poinski, M. (2023, February 10). Tofurky bought by Morinaga Nutritional Foods for undisclosed amount. Food Dive. https://www.fooddive.com/news/tofurky-bought-morinaga-nutritional-foods/642516/

Poletta, N. (2018, November 8). Missouri Passes Unconstitutional Law Restricting the Marketing of Alternative Meat Products. Animal Legal Defense Fund. https://perma.cc/3ZJQ-H2WS

Suri, M., & Ellixson, A. (2016, August 11). GMO Labeling Timeline – What Happened and Why? Part I. University of Maryland Department of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics Risk Management. https://perma.cc/UZR5-YMD7

Tao, X., & Razick, G. (2023, May 24). Alternative Proteins: Navigating the Maze of U.S. Federal and State Meat Labeling Requirements. Food and Drug Law Institute Update Magazine, Summer 2023. https://perma.cc/X8QL-LCPP

Treskon, M., Marotta, J., Rajasekaran, P., Ramakrishnan, K., & Shroyer, A. (2021). Do the Effects of a Regulatory Patchwork Justify State Preemption of Local Laws? Urban Institute. https://perma.cc/XE5H-8ETW

USDA-AMS. (2019). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Rule: National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: Updates to the List of Bioengineered Foods (Docket AMS-TM-17-0050-14035). https://www.regulations.gov/document/AMS-TM-17-0050-14035 .

Appendix

Interviews

We solicited initial interviews from 11 experts and snowball sampled a further 5 experts from the initial contacts’ recommendations. These solicitations resulted in 2 additional interviews, from organizations like nonprofit groups, food producers and manufacturers, food alliances, academia, and consultancy groups. We prepared an initial list of 13 questions, listed below, to ask during interviews and to share beforehand with interviewees on request. During interviews, we recorded and transcribed the audio when the interviewee gave consent ahead of the questions.

Interviewees

  • Jaime Athos, Tofurky
  • Amanda Howell, Animal Legal Defense Fund
  • Marjorie Mulhall, Plant Based Foods Association
  • Christie Lagally, Rebellyous Foods
  • Heman Bhojwani, Earthly Gourmet
  • Jessica Almy, The Good Food Institute
  • Julie Emmett, Plant Based Foods Association
  • 2 anonymous interviewees: one lobbyist, one distributor

Initial interview questions

Questions about a generic regulation effect

  • [HIGH priority] Can you provide a rough breakdown of the different components of labeling costs?
  • [HIGH priority] Thinking specifically about changing an existing (unregulated) product’s label to comply with some kind of new labeling law, what might be the main component of increased cost?
  • [MED priority] What are the upfront vs. ongoing costs of label changes? Which costs are more important in labeling changes: upfront or ongoing annual costs?

Questions about the effect of a patchwork of regulations

  • [MED priority] How likely do you think it would be that multiple states pass different laws in the next 10 years?
    • How many states do you think might pass different laws in the next 10 years?
  • [HIGH priority] Of the currently existing state alternative labeling laws, which represents the costliest labeling change for manufacturers, and why? What might be the costliest change in foreseeable future laws?
  • [HIGH priority] How much might complying with conflicting state regulations cost for alternative protein manufacturers?
    • For example, suppose two US states pass alternative protein labeling laws requiring different text be used to label alternative protein such that two different packages have to be manufactured to satisfy the states’ laws. Compared to using the same packaging in both states, how much would this increase the costs of packaging and distribution per unit of product?
  • [HIGH priority] For your estimate of the effect of patchwork regulation on increased manufacturer costs, what mechanism would be the main driver of the cost increase (i.e., what component of patchwork regulations drives the costs most)?
  • [HIGH priority] Do you think the marginal costs of complying with variation in state laws would be the same for each additional state that passes a regulation? (i.e., is the marginal cost of complying with the 1st state law the same as the marginal cost of complying with the Nth state law?) Or might the marginal costs increase or decrease as more states pass laws?

Other perspectives

  • [HIGH priority] Are there other costs (monetary or otherwise) to the production and distribution of alternative proteins when labeling laws differ across jurisdictions?
  • [MED priority] Is there any group or company who might unexpectedly support or oppose laws to label alternative proteins?
  • [WRAP UP] What are the costs (monetary or otherwise) of not advocating against alternative protein labeling laws meant to harm alt-protein manufacturers? What are the benefits of not advocating against them ?
  • [WRAP UP] Anything else you’d like to add?
  • [WRAP UP] Could you connect me with anyone else in your network who might provide a valuable perspective on labeling or patchwork policies? Especially current or former distributors or grocery buyers?

Coding and Analysis

The interview data are coded using a thematic analysis framework of 10 a priori deductive codes and 50 codes developed upon compiling the interview data. We perform the following thematic analysis steps, adapted from Braun and Clarke’s (2006) seminal work on the methodology.

  1. Generate a priori themes from theory and literature review
  2. Become familiar with the data
  3. Code data according to a priori themes
  4. Generate exploratory themes from the data
  5. Review themes
  6. Define and name themes
  7. Write down findings

We used Otter.ai software (Otter AI, 2024) to transcribe all interviews, and Delve online software (Delve, n.d.) to organize, code, and analyze the transcripts. Two researchers worked independently to code all transcripts, then discussed with each other and a third arbiter when in conflict. We followed the rules below when coding or reconciling codes:

  • One continuous bit of dialogue represents one code block.
  • Do not attempt to reconcile codes created by one person that come up infrequently (1-3 instances total).
  • Reconcile codes that come up frequently for one and not the other by discussing and reaching consensus.
  • Code all snippets at the code (i.e., lowest level) and only use themes (i.e., second and higher level) as organizational categories.

A priori codes

We developed the following codes based on the project aims and initial interview questions.

  • Printing cost estimates
  • Costs for changing relationship with distributors
  • Distribution warehouse space
  • Retail shelf space
  • Tractability of complying with conflicting regulations
  • Tractability of passing regulation
  • Marginal cost of additional conflicting state regulations
  • Enforcing regulations
  • Unexpected allies against restrictive labels
  • Unexpected opponents supporting restrictive labels

Exploratory codes

  • Consumer costs (pass through)
  • Consumer understanding
  • Cost of NOT opposing laws
  • Cultivated/fermented specific policy
  • Current advocacy group priorities
  • Design cost
  • Distributor regional costs | Distribution costs
  • Distributor/retailer reasons for dropping vendor
  • Economics vs. principles argument
  • Enforcement issues and costs
  • Evidence of current impact of laws
  • Example of conflicting regulations 1
  • Example of conflicting regulations 2
  • Example of not enforcing regulations
  • Existing state regulations | Geography of regulations
  • Federal guidance
  • Federal regulations | Dairy labeling regulation
  • Forecasting future regulations
  • Harm to small business
  • Impact on consumer demand | Consumer demand
  • Implications for marketing
  • Implications for online commerce
  • Indirect printing costs
  • Ingredients labeling | Allergen labeling
  • Intent behind restrictive labels | Opposition strategies
  • Inventory use and management costs
  • Label changing cost components
  • Label changing cost estimate
  • Legal ambiguity
  • Legal challenge to labeling law | Challenging regulations
  • Legal costs (challenges or compliance litigation)
  • Market exit | Dropped product costs
  • Multi-product regulation
  • Naming nuances
  • Nutritional comparison | Nutritional labeling
  • Packaging inventory costs
  • Policy landscape (not relevant)
  • Potential future advocacy group priorities
  • Printing costs
  • Reason behind labeling change
  • Regulation opposition issues and costs
  • Regulation specifics and legal philosophy
  • Risk of violating regulations | Lost opportunity from risk of violating
  • Speed of law taking effect
  • Supply chain structure
  • Total cost estimates
  • Unexpected benefit of NOT opposing laws
  • Unexpected negatives of challenging labelling
  • Unexpected ways to challenge regulations
  1. Notably, nearly every state code contains an imitation foods statute (e.g., Massachusetts 94:50), almost always in a separate section from the more recent animal product alternative labeling rules. The imitation rules generally predate their animal product alternative labeling counterparts (and seem targeted more at products such as imitation crab), and they do not appear to be the focus of the recent legal disputes around alternative product labeling. The one exception is Iowa; however, this statute includes “imitation” as one of the many possible qualifying words that can modify an animal alternative product label. For these reasons, we do not anticipate the patchwork arising from the imitation food rules in various state codes.
  2. Cell colors indicate the affected products:- orange: plant-based and cultured meat- pink: cultured meat only- green: plant-based only
  3. With regards to lack of qualifying language required for plant-based products: this law has been challenged by plant-based companies. As of 2024, the judge allowed a permanent injunction for Tofurky on item 10, but not for any other company. The judge recommended that Arkansas include exceptions for qualifying language, as many other states have, but the bill does not currently contain these exceptions.
  4. “prominently and conspicuously” is not defined in the bill and could be interpreted by courts to harm plant-based companies.
  5. The language specifying the seller (“No person advertising, offering for sale or selling all or part of a carcass or food plan”) is also found in Oklahoma’s law, which courts have interpreted to apply only to companies who sell both animal products and alternatives.
  6. This bill does not currently contain requirements for qualifying language on alternative protein products. However, the bill has been challenged by plant-based companies, and the court ruled that the Tofurky’s label was clearly not misleading consumers to believe that the products contained meat due to their use of the words “plant based”, “vegan”, and “vegetarian” (Turtle Island Foods, SPC v. Thompson, No. 19-3154, 8th Cir. 2021).Therefore, it seems unlikely that other plant-based products with standard labels would be found in violation of this law.
  7. The cultured meat rule appears twice in the Montana statutes.
  8. This bill defines “close proximity” in a separate definitions section (431.0805), while some other bills do not—notably Iowa’s and Kansas’ rules, which refer to proximity and prominence.