ARTICLE
26 February 2020

Vegan Dairy Challenges California Law On Plant-Based Food Labeling

SH
Shook, Hardy & Bacon

Contributor

Shook, Hardy & Bacon has long been recognized as one of the premier litigation firms in the country. For more than a century, the firm has defended companies in their most substantial national and international products liability, mass tort and complex litigation matters.

The firm has leveraged its complex product liability litigation expertise to expand into several other practice areas and advance its mission of “being the best in the world at providing creative and practical solutions at unsurpassed value.” As a result, the firm has built nationally recognized practices in areas such as intellectual property, environmental and toxic tort, employment litigation, commercial litigation, government enforcement and compliance, and public policy.

Miyoko's Kitchen Inc. has filed a lawsuit asserting that California infringed its First Amendment right to free speech by requiring the removal...
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences

Miyoko’s Kitchen Inc. has filed a lawsuit asserting that California infringed its First Amendment right to free speech by requiring the removal of “truthful messages and images from its website and its product labels—including the phrase ‘100% cruelty and animal free,’ the use of the word ‘butter’ in the phrase ‘vegan plant butter,’ and even an image of a ‘woman hugging a cow.'” Miyoko’s Kitchen v. Ross, No. 20-0893 (N.D. Cal., filed February 6, 2020). The company reportedly received a letter from California in December 2019 that “orders Miyoko’s to remove claims that its vegan products are ‘100% cruelty and animal free,’ ‘cruelty free,’ and ‘lactose free’—all entirely truthful statements."

“For decades, plant-based producers have used terms like ‘vegan cheese,’ ‘soy milk,’ and ‘cashew yogurt,'” the complaint asserts. “Consumers are not confused by these labels. In fact, plant-based dairy terms are so widely used that the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] itself uses them.” The complaint also asserts that the state’s letter cited FDA regulations on the standard of identity for “butter,” and the company argues that “FDA has repeatedly recognized that foods do not meet FDA’s threshold for ‘butter’ can of course use the term ‘butter’ in their common or usual name—products like peanut butter or apple butter, and all sorts of other fruit and nut butters have used the term ‘butter’ for well over a hundred years without any hint of consumers confusing them for butter from cow’s milk.” The company seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining California from enforcing the laws set forth in the December letter as well as costs and attorney’s fees.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More