p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Arial}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Arial; color: 1155cc; -webkit-text-stroke: 1155cc}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Arial; color: 333333; -webkit-text-stroke: 333333}
span.s1 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font-kerning: none}
span.s3 {font-kerning: none; color: 333333; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px 333333}
span.s4 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none; color: 1155cc; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px 1155cc}
According to the PBFA’s release, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture withdrew the proposed labeling regulation from the law passed earlier this year and replaced it with another more acceptable to the plaintiffs. The end to the lawsuit is no surprise. Mississippi officials initially proposed the new rules polysaccharide iron complex vs ferrous bisglycinatein September as a way of helping makers of plant-based foods comply with the ban on meat-based terms by using a “comparable qualifier” on package labeling, and the plant-based plaintiffs indicated they may drop the lawsuit if those revised rules weferrous glycine complexre adopted. Plant-based food manufacturers are likely to breathe a sigh of relief since no company wanted to spend time and money to redesign labels just to sell products in one state. Plant-based manufacturers said consumers are aware their products don’t contain real meat, and many say changing labels tosolgar ferrous bisglycinate conform to state law would create confusion where none exists.States, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming, have laws similar to the one in Mississippi. Arkansas and Missouri have also been sued. Plaintiffs in the Missouri litigation — the Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and plant-based brand Tofkegunaan obat ferrous fumarate folic acidurky — had asked for a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being enforced, but a federal judge recently denied that request. The plaintiffs have appealed.A similar group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in July against the Arkansas law and are waiting for a judge’iron gluconate syrups decision on their preliminary injunction request. They want the court to throw out the law and delay enforcement as the legal battle plays out.According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 45 bills regarding meat labeling have been proposed in 26 states as of August. Of those, 17 have been enacted in 14 states.It’s possible more lawsuits will be filed nationwide as plant-based product manufacturers and other supporters maintain they’re unconstitutional and a violation of free speech. Supporters, though, say the goal is to reduce consumer confusion when plant-based items are sitting next to meat products in retail display cases.Rather than pursue a laborious and costly patchwork of state-level laws, the meat industry is pushing for congressional action to restrict meat-like label terms to products actually containing meat from a cow. Last month, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives requiring products made to simulate beef, but not containing the real thing, to be labeled “imitation.” That bill has been assigned to committees, but no hearings have been scheduled.It’s hard to tell whether national legislation will be successful, and it will take time to see how litigation over state labeling laws gets resolved. The Mississippi case could be a template for resolving legal disputes over similar labeling laws, but since five months of negotiations finally reached an impasse in Missouri, talks are no guarantee of a settlement.
