What is a burger? Kansas bill requires disclaimer on veggie foods that use meat words

When is a hot dog not a hot dog?

The answer, some Kansas lawmakers say, is when it doesn’t contain meat.

A bill before the Legislature would prohibit producers of meat alternatives from using terms like burger, jerky and hot dog unless the products include specific disclaimers that they contain no meat. In some cases, they would be labeled “imitation.”

The legislation could change what Kansans see as they walk the aisles of their grocery store. It comes as a growing number of states – including neighboring Missouri – approve or consider bills restricting how meat alternatives are marketed.

The state’s livestock industry is spearheading the measure, saying it’s necessary to ensure fair competition with veggie burgers and other plant-based products. Livestock producers contend it will eliminate confusion among consumers and will make clear at the store what is – and isn’t – meat.

Animal rights advocates, producers of meat alternatives and other critics say the proposal runs afoul of the First Amendment by limiting how products can be marketed. They say the bill amounts to an effort by parts of the livestock industry to block change as more consumers turn to plant-based foods.

Lawmakers held a hearing on the bill Thursday, the day after a federal court largely invalidated a Kansas law that restricted undercover investigations and footage at agricultural facilities. The law, commonly called “ag-gag,” has been in place since the 90s.

The hearing in the House Agriculture Committee had been previously scheduled, but the timing underscored long-running tensions between livestock producers and groups that want to change the industry.

“It is certainly striking that at the moment that a court is telling Kansas legislators that they cannot act to protect the livestock industry by burdening speech, that lawmakers are, again, assembling to do just that,” said Alene Anello, a staff attorney at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which has sued to stop the Kansas law.

But supporters of the bill say the packaging on some products “misappropriates” meat terms and confuses consumers.

“We think that beef is a great product. It will out-compete this stuff on taste, nutrition, experience, but we’ve got to have a level playing field,” said Aaron Popelka, the Kansas Livestock Association’s vice president of legal and government affairs.

The popularity of meat and alternatives could ultimately have significant consequences for Kansas agriculture. Livestock – and beef in particular – is a multi-billion dollar a year industry in a state that includes millions of animals.

American consumers are increasingly exploring alternatives to meat, however. Nielsen, which tracks consumer habits, reported in 2019 that more than 21 percent of U.S. households are now purchasing meat alternatives.

The Kansas legislation, House Bill 2437, lists 22 meat-related terms that producers of meat alternatives won’t be able to use unless they’re labeled as “imitation” or are followed by the phrase “this product does not contain meat” in the same font and type size. The phrase the product must use depends in part on its nutritional value.

Among the terms listed: meat, beef, pork, chicken, turkey, jerky, steak, hamburger, burger, bacon, hot dog and wings.

During the hearing, lawmakers singled out meat alternatives for using words typically associated with meat, especially beef.

“When you read one of these things, we see ‘beyond meat,’ ‘beyond beef’,’ ‘crumbles,’ ‘beefy’ – well, that makes me think that it’s going to be hamburger beef from a cow, not from a head of lettuce,” Rep. Trevor Jacobs, a Fort Scott Republican, said.

Scott Weathers, a policy specialist at meat alternative advocacy group The Good Food Institute, disputed the idea that consumers are confused. Sales of meat alternatives are growing because consumers are seeking out the products, he said.

“People buy veggie burgers because they want to eat veggie burgers, not because they believe they’re something else,” Weathers said.

The Kansas debate comes after Missouri lawmakers approved a more restrictive law. The 2018 measure defines “meat” as food “derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.” The state’s agriculture department would refer violations to the Missouri Attorney General, who could pursue penalties of up to $1,000 or a year in jail.

The law was seen as a big win for cattlemen and poultry farmers, who have increasingly been made to compete with plant-based alternatives. But a coalition that includes the American Civil Liberties Union and The Good Food Institute have sued, saying the law violates free speech.

A Missouri district court judge declined to block the law, and in December, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied hearing the plaintiffs’ appeal.

Other states that have put forth fake meat labeling laws include Arkansas, Mississippi, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana and Louisiana.

Rep. Ron Highland, the Republican chairman of the Kansas House Agriculture Committee, said he doesn’t know when the panel will debate the bill. Rep. Sydney Carlin, the ranking Democrat, suggested lawmakers could work to improve the language.

“We got away from consumers’ health and well-being into marketing and free speech and all those – and those are important elements,” Carlin said following the hearing. “But it is a lot more to this than I thought there was going to be today.”

Kansas City Star reporter Crystal Thomas contributed to this story.

This story was originally published January 24, 2020 at 5:00 AM.