Missouri Might Imprison You for False Meat Advertising

A state law says you can't call it meat unless it's actually beef, pork, or poultry. Critics say the bill violates the First Amendment.



Don't say it's meat if it doesn't come from an animal. If you do, you could face a hefty fine or even time behind bars.

That just about sums up a Missouri law that takes effect today. The first statute of its kind in the United States, the law bans companies from describing meat substitutes as meat. These products, to be clear, are invariably marketed as alternatives to eating animals; no one is trying to pass them off as actual beef or pork or poultry.

Violations of the new law are punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or a year in prison. The Missouri Department of Agriculture can't prosecute violators, but it can refer them to county prosecutors or the attorney general's office.

The legislation's foes include Tofurky, a company that uses tofu to make vegetarian meat alternatives. Yesterday, Tofurky filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri claiming the law violates the First Amendment. Tofurky's co-plaintiffs include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Missouri, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit that advocates for plant- and lab-based food substitutes.

"Americans don't like censorship, and they don't like the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace," Good Food Institute Executive Director Bruce Friedrich said in a statement. "We're confident that the Court will overturn this anti-competitive and unconstitutional law." In their lawsuit, the groups say no consumers have complained to the state about being tricked by meat alternatives.

As Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman explained in an April piece for Reason, the fight between the beef lobby and companies that make meat substitutes is playing out at the federal level as well. The beef lobby claims to be concerned that customers are being misled by false advertising. It argues that there should be federal regulations on how alternative meat companies market their products.

Similarly, the dairy industry successfully convinced the Food and Drug Administration and a majority of the Senate that milk isn't milk unless it comes from a cow.

As Chapman explained, "People buy almond milk not because they think it contains cow's milk but because they know it doesn't. They order veggie burgers in the happy knowledge that no hooved beast was harmed to make them. If you go online in search of vegetarian or vegan foods, you will find such websites as 'Fake Meats' and 'The Vegetarian Butcher.' They are not trying to fool anyone."

The beef and dairy industries aren't really worried about false advertising; they just want to stifle the competition. Fake meat can be delicious, and that apparently calls for a legislative fix.

NEXT: Trump Doesn't Like What People See When They Search 'Trump News'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Tony better watch out.

  2. I’m so outraged.

    1. Regulatory capture is a real problem. I’m not outraged, more like sad because so many people in the US think they are free and couldn’t give a damn.

      1. Terry Pratchett wrote in Interesting Times that there was something worse than whips in the hands of guards. Whips in the heads of people.

        We often create our own chains. They seem to feel like warm hugs once a body gets used to it.

      2. Regulatory capture is a real problem. I’m not outraged, more like sad because so many people in the US think they are free and couldn’t give a damn.

        Is (was) there a private equivalent to IUPAC and/or NIST? Seems like if we avoid using internationally fixed definitions like 1/1000 the distance around the equator, or whatever, we end up with the nonsense length of some long-forgotten patriarch’s pedal appendage.

        Seems like a situation ripe to be solved by blockchain technology. So that we can not only have no idea about the definitions we’re using but no idea who we’re using them with and asking permission to have them approved by a mesh network of infrastructure providers.

  3. This is exactly what we deserve for allowing the government to decide there are non-organic tomatoes.

    1. I’m like organic chemistry.

    2. That’s not equivalent though. And BTW way this all started with milk 100 years ago when we let the government determine “milk” as something homogenized, pasteurized and with vitamin D added.

      A tomato is a tomato.

      But artificial meat that does not come from an animal is not meat. It seems fair to require truth in advertising on that.

  4. What good is a law that isn’t backed by the threat of imprisonment? Not much, as we’ve found out from those who violate constitutional protections.

  5. I guess that I can call water whiskey, right?

    1. Sure, just don’t expect to sell very much of it. Also, expect to pay all due sin taxes.

    2. Coors calls it beer.

      1. LOL – that is my opinion of Bud…

      2. Coors sells water with 5% ABV and weird flavoring?

        It’s like it’s … not water?

    3. Or vodka, depending on which language you prefer.

  6. “Americans don’t like censorship, and they don’t like the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace,” Good Food Institute Executive Director Bruce Friedrich said in a statement.

    That statement will come as a surprise to anyone who has voted in an American election.

  7. This is the type of Free Speech argument that comes across as silly and undermines the concept of “free” speech. If it’s not actually “Meat” then it doesn’t strike me as excessive to forbid labeling it as “meat”. Certainly, I wouldn’t have objected if someone had sued the company for false advertising.

    1. Except no one is misled by tofurkey.

      1. And nobody says you can’t call tofurkey tofurkey. Calling it meat is another issue. Can margarine now call itself butter? Can corn syrup now be labeled as honey? Is Miracle Whip mayonnaise? Well, that last one’s already been decided I guess so sure, call anything you want whatever you want because free speech trumps false advertising.

        1. Shall we also mandate that margarine can no longer have yellow dye added – because consumers are too stupid to tell its not butter?

      2. Which proves only that the tofurkey lawsuit is preemptive marketing strategy rather than a real threat.

        Even in their lawsuit they always say “plant-based meats”, not “meats”.

        Because they know damned well that “meat” without modifiers means the flesh of animals.

        They suggest that somehow they could be prosecuted for misrepresenting their products as “meat”, despite always labeling them as “plant-based meat”, which automatically makes it not a misrepresentation.

        (Remember, the definition of meat in that statute is for the language of the statute, and does not cover the use of the word meat itself; it does not pretend to make “plant-based meat” an illegal and inherently contradictory term.

        That Tofurkey wants to pretend it does compounds their problem and confirms they have incompetent lawyers or are doing this for pure publicity purposes.

        The statute requires that one deceive a customer about the product, and oddly their lawsuit doesn’t quote the definition of “misrepresent” from the statute … probably because it would clarify that “plant-based meat” is explicitly not misrepresentation.)

        1. Tofurky sells hot dogs. Is that representing their product as meat?
          Tofurky sells vegetarian ham roasts. Is that representing their product as meat?

          An eager prosecutor could easily make that case.

      3. What about turducken?

    2. Free speech means we have to tolerate a lot of bullshit. Now, you can ask the empire to clarify whatever word is bothering you, and they may oblige. However, like the Jews who asked the Romans to settle a dispute over who was king, you may not be happy with the results.

      1. And it just makes a strong assumption about who should be the arbiter of language usage. Something particularly dubious considering how tremendously fluid language usage is.

      2. Free speech means we have to tolerate a lot of bullshit.

        Sure, but when you’re tolerating outright fraud and socialism (I’m not saying we are) it’s less about the quintessence of free speech and more about self defense.

        As I said below. I don’t have a problem with meat from a test tube masquerading as meat. I do have a problem when a guy espousing the notion that the food system needs to change because of AGW, starving Africans, and obese Americans insists he has a right to market bean paste as beef.

        1. I don’t mind people talking about bullshit like socialism or regulatory capture. Hell, I wish they talked more about it, because more people would smarten up and learn to recognize bullshit when they hear it. It’s when they try to implement the bullshit that we have a problem.

          You seem triggered by some of the non-meat bullshit on the video. Disagreeing with that bullshit doesn’t make this other bullshit okay.

          1. You seem triggered by some of the non-meat bullshit on the video.

            Because there’s plenty of regulatory capture and pro-statist bullshit on the non-meat side of things as well.

        2. . . . he has a right to market bean paste as beef.

          Except nobody does that. That would be fraud. And we don’t need a new law to deal with it.

          But they certainly do advertise it as a burger substitute. And if we’re going to get into a definition war over ‘burger’ then its rapidly going to expand to cover pizza, chile, hundred of other foods that have massive regional variations. That’s not a can of worms I want, nor is it a proper function of, government to open.

          1. Except nobody does that. That would be fraud. And we don’t need a new law to deal with it.

            Slight disagreement. Save IP and Copyright, fraud is exceptionally hard to prove in a market competition setting. Part of what I dislike about this is, as they state, their discovery and production processes are patented while meat and butchery are pretty much public domain.

            I don’t disagree that they can offer it as a burger substitute and I wouldn’t insist that they change brand names but between the article and the video the only thing differentiating the “JUST Meat” products from conventional meat products is vague ambiguity.

            It should be dead simple to hold up the already-required ingredients list from a conventional cut of meat that says “Ingredients: Beef” next to a lab grown meat product that says “Ingredients: Proprietary Cell Growth Products, Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium, Fetal Bovine Serum…” and see the difference. However, that doesn’t afford as much smug superiority to mock beef producers for defending themselves.

            1. All ‘beef’ is is cell growth products. The only real distinction is between ‘proprietary’ and ‘open-source’.

              1. The only real distinction is between ‘proprietary’ and ‘open-source’.

                Mmmm… this contains implications for other non-food products that I don’t agree with. Just because you use two different tools and methods to achieve the same result doesn’t mean the accessibility of the tools and methods is the only distinction.

    3. Well, only if you limit the definition of the word (i.e. limiting SPEECH).

      Definition of meat
      1 a : food; especially : solid food as distinguished from drink
      b : the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (such as a husk or shell)
      2 : animal tissue considered especially as food:
      a : flesh 2b; also : flesh of a mammal as opposed to fowl or fish
      b : flesh 1a; specifically : flesh of domesticated animals
      3 archaic : 1meal 1; especially : dinner
      4 a : the core of something : heart
      b : pith 2b a novel with meat
      5 : favorite pursuit or interest

      1. Funny, when I eat fish and fowl I still consider myself to be eating meat. Even vegetarians consider fish and fowl meat – they (those that still eat fish) just distinguish between ‘red-meat’ and ‘not-red-meat’.

        It could be that definitions fluctuate and maybe we shouldn’t rush into locking a definition into law when there’s such wide disagreement over it.

        1. “Meatless Tuesdays” and Catholic Friday night fish are likely at the center of these notions, but I agree with you… meat is muscle tissue from an animal.

          But “not locking definition into law” flies in the face of having any sort of regulation of marketing. You might as well chuck the FTC.

          I have my own preferred alternatives, but if you want to have someone enforcing “what is in the bottle is exactly what is described on the label”, you need some objective 3rd party and some sort of set of standards.

    4. False advertising is already against the law. Critically, though, that law requires that someone actually be harmed – that is, be misled by the false advertising. This law criminalizes true advertising with no requirement to show that anyone was actually confused.

      1. I don’t know about that.

        Just take a stroll through any pharmacy in the US. You’ll find entire aisles filled with homeopathic remedies. Despite a disclaimer that says “not intended to treat or diagnose any disease”, millions still fork over hard earned cash for products that not only don’t work, but cannot possibly work. Yet rarely do we see anyone from the government stepping in to stop them. And by definition, anyone who plunked down their cash for a homeopathic remedy was actually harmed and actually mislead.

  8. Who is the person who thinks people can’t figure out meat?

    1. same peeps who vote for Claire McCaskill

  9. “Missouri Might Imprison You for False Meat Advertising”

    Tinder males hardest hit!

    1. LOL Upvote.

  10. A state law says you can’t call it meat unless it’s actually beef, pork, or poultry.

    What is venison, chopped vegetables?

    1. Fish! It’s now permitted on Fridays.

    2. There’s no venison trade association playing golf with legislators.

    3. The legislation includes captive cervids.

    4. Or lamb. Or goat. Or alligator. Or turtle. Etc.

  11. the dairy industry successfully convinced the Food and Drug Administration and a majority of the Senate that milk isn’t milk unless it comes from a cow.

    Breaking News: Goats No Longer Mammals, Says FDA.

    1. They should generalize it to all titty secretions.

    2. Coconuts hardest hit. Also milkweed.

      1. Latex industry hit hard but managed to bounce back.

    3. “Goat milk” can still somehow be sold, labeled as “goat milk”.

      They “somehow” convinced the FDA that “milk” without modifiers has to mean cow milk because that’s what everyone in the United States expects the word to refer to.

      Those goddamn monsters.

      (I mean, we’d do fine without the FDA and all that.

      But this is the least objectionable thing they do, and the sort of thing I’d expect Libertopia to come up with as voluntary standards or a trademark for “honest language on packaging” ala Kosher marks.

      Because nobody wants to have to inspect all the “milk” at the store to see which is cow and which is sheep and which is goat and which is lab-grown batmilk.

      Batmilk, though.)

      1. ‘Nobody wants to’ is not justification for ‘government will kill you if’.

        Ultimately, government will kill you if you ‘mislable’ your milk.

  12. I wonder how the Tofurky people feel about GMO labeling laws.

  13. This kind of thing goes way back.
    By law, a hamburger can only contain ground beef, as of roughly the end of WW2 (or the end of the Depression, I’m too lazy to consult my source).

    1. It’s almost like words mean things, and people selling stuff should use them the way everyone expects them to be used, rather than redefining them as fits their ideal profit model of the moment or something?

      (“What do you mean my hamburgers can’t contain sawdust and pigskins!?”)

      1. Its almost like some words are just general descriptors that cover broad categories with wide variance inside those categories.

      2. What do you mean my Hamburgers aren’t German?

      3. Why can’t hamburgers contain pork orchicken? Before the Beef Association stepped in and got a ruling that nobody asked for, a hamburger was a burger was ground meat. Somehow, we survived.

        It does add a certain cynical pleasure when I hear Mickey D’s or Burger King or whoever advertising ‘all beef patties’ as making their hamburger special.

        1. If you want pork in it, you can’t call it ham?

    2. Do they also define the bun – what size, composition, etc? How about toppings? Is it no longer a hamburger if you put ketchup on it, or is ketchup mandatory? What about bacon. Does that make it not a hamburger anymore? Cheese?


        Definition of buns.

        1. But it critically does not define the ‘proper’ bun without which a hamburger can not be called a hamburger. I mean, what if the thing’s served on ciabatta?!

  14. What am I supposed to do, whip it out?

    1. Stroke!

      *wanders off to watch Billy Squiers videos*

      1. in the dark

      2. Strzok?

  15. He shouldn’t be forbidden from calling it meat because the meat came from a test tube. He should be forbidden from calling it meat because it comes from the bullshit he spouts from 3:00-3:24.

  16. Wait a minute. Didn’t Trump take a “meat” axe to business regulations? If he has time to twitter about someone who insults him, he has time to review what the FDA is up to.

  17. They need to do something about these “mild” chili hot beans I keep seeing in the stores. I is confused boss.

  18. False Meat was my nickname in culinary school.

  19. The beef lobby claims to be concerned that customers are being misled by false advertising

    Christ. No one, in the history of vegetarianism, has ever confused tofu with meat. Not even a slight hesitation as they reach for the tofu-burgers in the freezer section of the supermarket before realizing that those aren’t frozen hamburger patties.

    And, I’m not aware of any of these products ever billing themselves as *meat*. Always as a meat substitute. At least the milk guys can claim with a straight face that soy milk or almond milk producers don’t make it painfully obvious that their product is not cow milk (relying instead on the consumer not being a total muppet and able to tell the difference). But then again, they don’t make it clear that they sell *cow* milk instead of milk from some other animal. Sauce for the goose and all that.

    1. I absolutely agree with you in spirit. Keep that in mind.

      A guy I once knew told me about some vegan friends of his who he found chowing down on artificial crab meat. He did the, “… uh, guys” thing.

      No, no, they assured him. It’s okay, this is *artificial*.


      Ponder the majestic infinity of human stupidity. I just think maybe its tilting at windmills to decide anything can or should be done about it.

      1. I was gonna say similar. The crime is the act of murder not whether you got away with it or not. Vegetarians have been striving to pass off veggies as meat since time immemorial. The same way carnivores have always striven to include meat and meat byproducts in vegetarian diets. Whether they were successful or not is somewhat beside the point.

        1. I’m not a vegetarian because I love animals, I’m a vegetarian because I hate plants.

      2. Walking down the street on Yom Kippur, a Jewish guy saw his rabbi eating oysters. He asks him “On today, when we are not allowed to eat at all, how can you eat a food that is not allowed at any time?”
        The rabbi answers, “There’s an ‘R’ in Yom Kippur.”

        1. The Rabbi is a pirate?

      3. “No, it’s ‘artificial’ in that it’s not made out of real crabs… but it’s still actually meat.”

        As a glance at the ingredients list would show.

        1. Usually pollock, a type of fish.

  20. Can we outlaw socialist calling themselves liberals now?

  21. I’m so old I remember when libertarians were okay with making it illegal to make false claims about your products to sell them.

    But more importantly, the law in question says you can only say that things people normally agree are actually meat are “meat”.

    It does not say you can’t call them a “meat alternative”; I can’t see anything in the “misrepresentation” language that would prevent that, because “meat alternative” is not a misrepresentation of something that is-not-meat; it’s a claim that it is NOT meat.

    “Meat alternative” is not “untrue, misleading, or deceptive”, because, again, it is not a claim that the product is meat.

    I expect, though God knows why, better of Reason than to just assume that the existence of a lawsuit by hippies means a law does a thing.

    Is it that hard to read the damned law you linked to?

    (Sure, we can talk about it being bad when lab-meat that is actually meat at the molecular level exists, and push for reforming that, or clarifying in the law that “no, that isn’t misrepresentation to just call it meat, ’cause it is”.

    But Tofurkey? Is suing for free publicity, because they don’t call it meat and it would not be affected, nor would any of the other hippie not-at-all-meat products, because none of them, at all, claim to be meat.)

    1. But more importantly, the law in question says you can only say that things people normally agree are actually meat are “meat”.

      What happens when that definition changes? When people normally agree that something that wasn’t meat years ago is now in the meat category? We have to go back and lobby to get the law changed?

      Is fish meat? By the standards of the normal people I know it is. And they’re Catholics. But at one point it wasn’t. And in Missouri, apparently, it no longer is.

    2. But Tofurkey? Is suing for free publicity, because they don’t call it meat and it would not be affected, nor would any of the other hippie not-at-all-meat products, because none of them, at all, claim to be meat.

      This aspect is glossed over or even presented a bit in bad faith. “They’re regulating products that don’t even claim to be meat, how stupid.” rather than “They’re effectively petitioning for a broad copyright or intellectual property and competitors are suing because that’s what you do to your competition.”

      A bit of the problem is that fraud is difficult to prove, courts and lawyers cost money, and that means less graft for legislators.

      1. What does it mean to represent the food as meat?

        Is calling something a hot dog representing it as meat? A ham roast? Both are sold by Tofurky.

        1. What does it mean to represent a food as pizza?

          Deep dish





          Tomato Pie


          Thick crust, thin crust, pesto sauce, alfredo sauce, barbeque sauce, margherita. Hell, I know a guy who makes a ‘Mexican’ Pizza that incorporates refried beans into the sauce and topped with chorizo.

          Freaking Taco Bell has like 7 ingredients – and they use that to make over 100 (somewhat) distinct items. Food doesn’t fit into neat little unchanging categories.

  22. I didn’t get to the part where they said the thing about the stuff, but this caught my eye:

    205 16. The governing body of any city of the third classification with more
    206 than twenty-six thousand three hundred but fewer than twenty-six thousand
    207 seven hundred inhabitants located in any county that has exercised its authority
    208 to opt out under subsection 15 of this section may levy separate and differing tax
    209 rates for real and personal property only if such city bills and collects its own
    210 property taxes or satisfies the entire cost of the billing and collection of such
    211 separate and differing tax rates. Such separate and differing rates shall not
    212 exceed such city’s tax rate ceiling.

    More than 26,300 but less than 26,700 sounds suspiciously pretty damn precise – anybody know which one specific city in Missouri fits that description, which legislator stuck that paragraph in there, and for what reason?

    1. Intriguing…. Maryland Heights is suspect. Although a quick search has turned up wildly differing results.


      1. >>>Maryland Heights is suspect

        unless you have an idea, you have no idea.

  23. I do this weird thing where I read the labels of stuff before I buy it. I do this particularly in a place like Whole Foods where they sell stuff like this.


  24. The first statute of its kind in the United States, the law bans companies from describing meat substitutes as meat.

    I’m pretty sure there are already laws against fraud.

    1. Right but as is pointed out throughout the thread. Ham and bacon are a widely recognized pork products. While there is the lone/errant hamburger (and even then, the hamburger isn’t named after the pork product nor is it trying to emulate a pork product), there is no coconut bacon, hamweed, or goat’s ham but Tofurky advertises a ham product that contains no pork. The ingredients, of course, don’t lie but it’s one step removed from privately/corporately co-opting a definitive aspect of something. When pork no longer means ‘derived from pigs’ in any way then it’s hard to say that anything claiming to be pork isn’t fraudulent.

  25. About time the government enforced laws against criminal fraud

  26. Ok, here’s the actual definitions in the law they’re talking about.

    “Livestock”, cattle, calves, sheep, swine, ratite birds including but not
    24 limited to ostrich and emu, aquatic products as [defined] described in section
    25 277.024, llamas, alpaca, buffalo, bison, elk documented as obtained from a legal
    26 source and not from the wild, goats, or horses, other equines, or rabbits raised in
    27 confinement for human consumption;


    (8) “Meat”, any edible portion of livestock or poultry carcass or part
    35 thereof;

    36 (9) “Meat product”, anything containing meat intended for or capable of
    37 use for human consumption, which is derived, in whole or in part, from livestock
    38 or poultry;

    So, no, nobody’s fooled by tofurkey – because tofurkey is not labeled as “100% Natural Turkey Meat In Broth”. You can still call your product a burger if you want, you just can’t call it a meat burger just the same as you can’t call a slice of bologna a New York strip steak.

    1. So technically eating a kangaroo would not constitute eating “meat”? Loophole!

  27. At last, Intersectional Carnivorism !

    Cue Title IX cultural appropriation hearings on horsehair matress ingredients.

    1. I’ve already got a ‘Dear Colleages,’ letter delineating meat nomenclature prepared in case I win an election.

  28. I’m confused as to what the regulation is, and why this is a free speech issue for the ACLU.

    Does the law say you can’t call a soy based meat substitute a “meat substitute”? Because on the face of it in the summary and quotes it sounds like you can’t call a soy-burger “meat”. As in, “this patty is made of meat.”

    I’m not aware of veggie products that say “this is meat”, but they will call something “Boca Burger”, which might imply that it is an upscale hamburger for people from Boca Raton, Florida. It says “veggie burger” right on the package, and markets itself as a meat-free burger substitute. But the name isn’t “veggie burger”. That’s in the subtitle “all American veggie burger”. If you said “Made with Boca Meat” and left off the veggie burger description, would that be OK? Or is that deceptive? Should I have to look to the ingredients list to figure out if it is made of cow or not?

    Isn’t this kind of regulation normal? Like, you can’t call a California sparkling wine “champagne”, even though it is pretty much an identical product. You certainly can’t sell acetaminophen as “aspirin” even though for many applications they would be interchangeable. But you can sell “Nutella” as a “hazelnut spread” when the first ingredient is sugar, the second is palm oil. You have to get down to the third ingredient before hazelnut shows up. I’d say “sugar and oil flavored with hazelnut and chocolate” is more accurate.

    I dunno… what is so different about this one?

  29. 265.494

    Disparaging or degrading any product advertised or offered for sale by
    the seller, displaying any product or depiction of a product to any buyer in order
    to induce the purchase of another product or representing that a product is for
    sale when the representation is used primarily to sell another product, or
    substituting any product for that ordered by the buyer without the buyer’s

    Ok, now this part seems to run afoul of the first amendment. It looks like they banned comparison ads. So “look at my competitor’s lame and tiny burger… now look at our big, juicy, delicious burger” is against the law.

    1. On second read.. it talks about the “seller”. So a supermarket can’t display an ad that says “beef is nasty…. buy our fake beef!”.

      Hmm….. that doesn’t seem to fit within the first amendment either…. but I can’t figure out where and when such a thing would happen. I don’t think I’d offer the “denigrated” product for sale if I was doing that.

  30. 265.494

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


    So… what’s the complaint again? Tofurkey makes a veggie burger. They market it as a veggie burger. Not a problem….

    Oh… I get it. The lab-grown meat guys are behind this! This has nothing whatever to do with soy burgers. This is about lab-grown meat being labeled as meat!

    Huh…. well.. The regulation talks about all sorts of misrepresenting…. like you can’t say a cut is sirloin if it is chuck. And you can’t say it is Grade A if it is Grade C. All that makes sense..

    And you can’t say “ground sirloin” if it is not sirloin ground up.

    So…. if they have “lab grown beef tissue”, what are they to call it. They can’t say “sirloin”, because it isn’t. That much is clear.

    1. But what of a ground beef product made of lab grown cells? If they just call it Ground Beef? Hm… I don’t know…. it sure seems that if I saw a package with ground up red meat looking stuff and you said “85% lean ground beef” on the package, I’d think it was ground up cow that was 15% fat. I certainly wouldn’t think “lab grown meat”.

      If that’s what the argument is about, I’d be arguing for a slot it the law for my lab-grown meat, instead of saying it is a free speech issue and I should be free to call it “ground beef” or “ribeye” if I think my product is a close substitute.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.