Texas Legislation Would Require Disclosure of “Human Benefit” of “Imitation” Meat

Texas Senate Bill 883 would declare a food misbranded if it is “advertised or labeled as containing or imitating meat” if “any part of its labeling is false or misleading; the food is misrepresented as harvested meat through the use of any misleading or deceptive advertising or labeling; any portion of the food’s advertising or labeling suggests or implies that the food imitates meat, beef, chicken, or pork when the food does not; the food includes a label stating ‘meat,’ ‘beef,’ ‘chicken,’ ‘pork,’ or any common variation of those terms, if the food does not contain the products listed on the label;” or “the food’s label includes a claim comparing the food’s nutritional value to that of meat without disclosing the human benefit of the food.” “Human benefit” is not defined. The bill defines “meat” as “any edible portion of a livestock carcass that does not contain lab-grown, cell cultured, insect, or plant-based food products.”