Plant-Based Foods Association's Challenge to the "Act" Dismissed

Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman

Email

202-434-4100

Bio and Articles

Find Your Next Job !

Commercial Real Estate Transactional Attorney / Real Estate Lawyer
On Balance Search Consultants

Litigation Attorney / Real Estate and Commercial Litigator
On Balance Search Consultants

Trusts & Estates Partner / Senior Attorney
On Balance Search Consultants

Litigation Paralegal
Greenberg Traurig

Matrimonial Attorney
On Balance Search Consultants

Chief Operating Officer / Business Manager
On Balance Search Consultants

Litigation Legal Support Specialist
Greenberg Traurig

Trusts & Estates Attorney / Estate Planning Lawyer
On Balance Search Consultants

Family/Matrimonial Law Attorney
On Balance Search Consultants

Legal Expert in Commercial & Real Estate Litigation / Property Dispute Speciali…
On Balance Search Consultants

Explore More Job Openings

Court Dismisses Challenge to Oklahoma’s Meat Labeling Law

by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman of Keller and Heckman LLP - The Daily Intake

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Print Mail Download info_icon_img

/>i

Last month the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed for lack of standing an amended complaint filed by the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) and the Tofurky Company challenging the “Oklahoma Meat Consumer Protection Act” (the “Act”). The Court had previously dismissed an earlier iteration of the lawsuit.
The Act prohibits any person “advertising, offering for sale or selling meat” from “misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock,” but indicates that plant-based meat products do not violate the Act so long as their packaging bears a disclosure that the product is derived from plants. “Meat” is defined as “any edible portion of livestock or part thereof.”
The Court recited the well-known tenants of Article III standing. Namely, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) injury in fact, (2) causation between the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) that a favorable decision would be likely to redress the injury.
The Court held that Defendants could not demonstrate injury because the Act’s text literally only applied to persons “advertising, offering for sale or selling meat,” the definition of “meat” did not encompass plant-based meat products, and Defendants (including PBFA’s members) could not show that they sold meat. Although the Court recognized that this construction was clearly inconsistent with the Act’s intent to prevent misleading marketing of plant-based meat products, it stated that the task of re-writing the statute was for the legislature.
The Court also held that causation could not be established because neither of the Defendants (the OK Governor and the OK Commissioner of Agriculture) had the authority to enforce the Act. The State Board of Agriculture was charged with enforcing the law and the Commissioner was only one member of the Board. Furthermore, the Court held that OK does not have a unitary executive and the governor of OK is not charged with enforcement (unlike many other states). Finally, the redressability element was not met where there was no power to enforce the Act.