On October 21, 2019, we blogged about the constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 12, which prohibits the sale in California of eggs, pork or veal produced by animals not raised in accordance with California animal protection rights. As we explained, plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction.
Continue Reading

We have blogged several times, most recently on October 15, 2019, about the so-called meatless meat statutes. These statutes attempt to protect producers of meat from competition from plant- or lab-based foods that are engineered to look and taste like real meat. The stated rationale is to prevent purveyors of meatless meat from misleading consumers. As is the case with many consumer protection statutes, the real objective is to protect competitors.

Continue Reading

Our latest blog post on this proposition was on January 17, 2019, which discussed the efforts of various states to challenge California’s ban on the sale of eggs, pork and veal that have not been raised according to California’s strict standards for animal protection. Those standards establish minimum space requirements considerably more generous than the industry standards. The ban originally applied only to California farmers, but they quickly realized that they would be at a substantial competitive disadvantage if the ban did not apply to such foods produced in other states. In 2010, the legislature extended the egg ban to all states.

Continue Reading

We last blogged about Tofurky’s challenge to Missouri’s meatless meat statute on September 16, 2019.  Settlement negotiations had broken down and the parties asked the District Court to address plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.  On September 30, 2019, the Court issued an order certifying a defendant class consisting of the prosecuting attorneys in each county in Missouri.  To our considerable surprise however, the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction.
Continue Reading

We blogged on April 16, 2019, about the legal challenge to Missouri’s prohibition of characterizing plant- or cell-based products as “meat.” In response to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, the state made no effort to defend the statute as written. Instead, it argued that the state Department of Agriculture had issued a statement that it would not refer any manufacturer for prosecution if the labeling clearly disclosed the origin of the product. That statement was not, however, binding on the county prosecutors whose duty it is to enforce the statute.

Continue Reading

On April 10, 2019, we blogged about Minerva Dairy’s challenge to the Wisconsin butter grading statute. On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.  Given the strength of the dairy lobby in Wisconsin – until the mid-1960’s manufacturers of margarine were not permitted to compare its taste to butter –

We blogged several times – most recently, on April 24, 2019 – about Iowa’s “ag-gag” law, which makes it a criminal offense to gain employment in or access to farm or ranch operations by means of false pretenses. The primary purpose of these kinds of statutes is to prevent undercover investigation of agricultural operations that engage in animal cruelty.

Continue Reading

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) recently issued an industry circular which makes clear that cannabidiol (CBD), a product derived from hemp, is not permitted in alcohol beverages.

TTB generally consults with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when establishing whether an ingredient for use in an alcoholic beverage is safe.

On several occasions, the latest being March 27, 2019, we blogged about the Iowa “ag gag” law, which made it a criminal offense for persons to use false representations to gain access to farms and ranches for the purpose of exposing animal rights abuses. The District Court in Iowa held that the statute violated