Producers of plant-based meat may soon have to change their labels under a bill Kansas lawmakers tout as consumer protection legislation. Restaurants, however, wouldn’t have to comply with the same requirements.
The meat labeling bill has been promoted as a way to help consumers at the grocery store who may accidentally buy fake meat instead of real meat. The legislation specifically exempts restaurant menus from the same requirements.
The bill “is needed to protect consumers from deceptive labels,” said Rep. Joe Newland, R-Neodesha, who carried the bill on the House floor. “Meat labels require pre-approval from USDA, but no similar requirements exist for non-meat products.”
Newland told the Capital-Journal that restaurants weren’t included in the bill because “our main consideration is that consumer at the grocery store” and “strictly a label on a product.” “We want just fair labeling,” he said.
Rep. Ken Rahjes, R-Agra and chair of the agriculture committee, told the Capital-Journal that legislators focused on retail purchases. He said restaurants may offer the information on their own, but the question of whether to include restaurants in the labeling requiring was never brought up in committee discussions.
“When you go to the meat case at a grocery store or box store, there’s not somebody there to answer questions for you in your selections,” Rahjes said. “So the idea is focusing in on the retail level where consumers are going to take it home to prepare at home.
“We want to make sure that when they take it home, they know exactly what they’re getting.”
The House voted 96-26, with bipartisan support and opposition, to pass House Substitute for Senate Bill 261 on Monday.
“Consumers rely on the names and product packaging when they purchase food,” said Rep. Sydney Carlin, D-Manhattan. “What we’re trying to do with this bill is to clarify that there is no meat in a product that is meatless.”
The bill is a House Agriculture Committee gut-and-go with the contents taken from House Bill 2530. None of the representatives opposed to the bill spoke on the House floor.
“I talked to our producers over the weekend; I represent over two dozen producers. They’re fully supportive of this,” Clifford said.
The bill is good for Kansas agriculture and consumers, said Rep. Lisa Moser, R-Wheaton, who is a fourth-generation farmer and rancher.
“It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” Moser said. “Although they can try to imitate the meat industry’s protein-packed and delicious industry products, fake meat will never pass the taste test.
“I feel very adamantly that the transparent truth needs to be told about those products that try to emulate ours.”
Meat scientists at Kansas State University have found that consumers prefer the taste of meat compared to imitation products. The research was funded by the Kansas Beef Council.
The Senate on Tuesday opted not to concur with the House’s bill, setting the issue up for a conference committee debate next week.
The bill defines imitation meat as food that “approximates the aesthetic qualities, primarily texture, flavor and appearance, or the chemical characteristics” of real meat. Fish isn’t included in the bill’s meat definitions.
The bill requires labels for imitators using an identifiable meat term — such as “hamburger” or “hot dog” — to include a disclaimer that the product doesn’t contain meat.
Acceptable words include “meat-free,” “vegetarian” and “vegan,” among others. “Plant-based” is on the list of allowed terms, despite opposition calling it an insufficient disclaimer.
Alternatively, labels could use the word “imitation” if the food meets federal definitions.
Disclaimers must be in the same font, style and size as the identifiable meat term. They also must be in “close proximity” to the identifiable meat term but don’t necessarily have to be immediately before, as in “veggie burger.”
Restaurant menus and menu boards aren’t subject to the requirement. Newland, the bill’s sponsor, said the bill is crafted to require the use of disclaimers because attempts in other states to address the issue by prohibiting certain words have face constitutionality challenges. The bill has a severability clause in case of an adverse court ruling.
Legislation elsewhere, such as a 2019 Arkansas law, banned alternative products from using the word “meat.” The bill, which also banned vegetables from being labeled “rice,” such as cauliflower, was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of Oregon-based Tofurky Co. as violating free speech rights. A federal court issued a temporary injunction and declared the law was likely unconstitutional.
A “poorly” written Missouri law ran into similar legal issues, said proponents of the Kansas version. The Kansas legislation is more like an Oklahoma law that survived a preliminary injunction.
Misbranding food is already illegal under Kansas law. Violators are subject to civil penalties from the agriculture secretary of up to $1,000 per violation. Reckless or intentional violations are a misdemeanor crime.
This session’s original bill, HB 2530, was debated in the House Agriculture Committee in February.
Kansas Livestock Association had in-person testimony in support of the bill, along with written support from Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association, Kansas Dairy Association, Kansas Corn Growers Association and Kansas Soybean Association.
Kansas Chamber opposed the bill in-person, and written opposition was submitted by Kansas Justice Institute, Plant Based Foods Association and Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association.
Aaron Popelka, a lobbyist for the Kansas Livestock Association, said KLA supports a competitive free market.`
“We think if you have a product, and you can sell it, go ahead,” Popelka said. “Let’s get in the market and compete.” But in the case of plant-based meats, the competition “is playing, essentially, outside the rules.”
He specifically named Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat. “When you look at some of the labels that they put on these sayings are very deceptive,” Popelka said. “Part of it is they’re trying to sell it, but part of it is they’re trying to sell it at the expense and confusion of consumers.”
The Plant Based Foods Association contends that its members haven’t seen cases of customer confusion.
“In fact, plant-based meat companies already have every incentive to label their foods with non-misleading terms that make it clear their products do not contain animal meat because this is what attracts consumers to their foods,” the association wrote.
Popelka pointed to a 2017 Vox interview with Impossible Foods CEO Pat Brown, who said the company is targeting meat-eaters, not vegetarians. He said the market for alternative meat is “miniscule” compared to the beef industry.
“We have zero interest really in vegetarian customers,” Brown said. “In fact, I’m not being ironic, every time we sell a burger to a vegan or a vegetarian, it’s actually a complete waste in terms of our mission.”
While the bill is not applicable to restaurants, the restaurant association requested an amendment that would explicitly state that food establishments are not affected. They called the existing federal regulatory scheme “as murky as a Kansas river during the spring rains.”
No such amendment was made. The association noted its “long history opposing the accompanying costs of new regulations,” but indicated support for an approach that doesn’t affect restaurants.
Kansas Chamber lobbyist Eric Stafford said their opposition stems from “a regulatory climate standpoint.” The chamber of commerce represents some food manufacturers who would be put in the position of printing labels specifically for distribution in Kansas.
“Basically, we’re looking at whether it’s your role today to protect consumers from themselves and whether they’re buying products that are misleading,” Stafford said.
The chambers maintain that existing product labels are not deceptive, he said.
The chamber supports a competitive free market. He wrote that the bill “places restrictions on competition under the guise of consumer protection.”
Popelka said a survey from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association found “very significant customer confusion” due to labels. He showed lawmakers a Beyond Meat package from a Topeka grocery store.
“There’s a steer there with a cape, it says ‘Beyond Meat,’ ‘Beyond Beef Crumbles,’ ‘Beefy.’ It looks like a picture there of what appears to be hamburger, and down clear at the bottom next to the weight is a little deal, it says plant-based crumbles,” Popelka said.
Does bill invite federal intervention? The Plant Based Foods Association called the bill “unnecessary, unconstitutional, and misguided” and claimed that packaging already has “clear, non-misleading terms.” It said companies want shoppers “to be clear about what they are buying.”
A potential lawsuit could cost Kansas taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation fees, the association said.
The justice institute claimed the bill will violate free speech protections and potentially run afoul of federal interstate commerce regulation while placing an excessive burden on out-of-state businesses.
Forcing businesses to choose from a pre-approved list of words constitutes a “content-based regulation of speech,” the institute testified.
Rep. Jason Probst, D-Hutchinson, said the patchwork of state legislation will invite federal overreach. He ultimately voted for the bill. “We’re creating a labeling requirement for something, while it might hurt your pride a little bit if you buy the wrong thing, but certainly isn’t dangerous to anyone,” he said. “No one’s going to be harmed if they accidentally buy something that they thought was something else.”
Rep. Rui Xu, D-Westwood, called the bill unnecessary. He voted against it. “I don’t think anybody is mis-buying these products for what they perceive it is,” he said.
Rep. Trevor Jacobs, R-Fort Scott, voted for the bill. “The only regret or sad thing I see on all of this is that we have to have a bill to make a company or make somebody actually tell the truth,” he said.
As reported in the Topeka Capital Journal.
