Meat and Ethics Off the Table: Food Labeling and the Role of Consumers As Agents of Food Systems Change

NICOLE E. NEGOWETTI* Taking (Animal-Based) Meat and Ethics off the Table: Food Labeling and the Role of Consumers as Agents of Food Systems Change Overview ............................................................................................ 92 Introduction ........................................................................................ 92 I. Plant-Based Meat and Food Choice Drivers and Barriers ...... 95 A. Overview of Alternative Meats ........................................ 97 B. Food Choice Architecture: Drivers and Barriers of Animal-Based and Plant-Based Meat Consumption ..... 102 II. Plant-Based Meat and the Market-Based Theory of Change 106 A. Market-Based Theory of Change Possibilities and Problems ........................................................................ 109 B. Narratives of Plant-Based Meat: The Same, but Better . 112 III. The Naming and Labeling of “Meat” .................................... 117 A. Overview of Labeling Regulatory Oversight ................. 117 1. Defining “Meat” ....................................................... 118 2. Federal “Meat” Labeling Restrictions ...................... 119 3. State Meat Labeling Laws ........................................ 122 B. Analysis of Labeling Laws ............................................ 127 IV. Credence Claims: Distinguishing Plant from Animal Meat . 129 A. Regulating Credence Claims ......................................... 130 * Lecturer on Law and Clinical Instructor, Harvard Law School Animal Law and Policy Clinic. The author thanks the Food & Drug Law Institute for the opportunity to present a version of this paper at the 2019 Symposium, and in particular, Nigel Barrella for his very helpful comments. The author also benefitted from feedback received at the Second Annual Academy of Food Law and Policy Conference from Professors Timothy Lytton, Alexia Burnet Marks, Sarah Morath, Michael Roberts, Joanna Sax, Susan Schneider, Steph Tai, and Diana Winters. [91] 92 OREGON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 99, 91 B. The Elusive “Natural” Definition .................................. 133 1. The “Natural” Meat Controversy ............................. 137 2. Public Perceptions of Processing and the “Natural” and “Healthy” Debates ............................................. 140 C. GMO, GE, and BE: Making Sense of Genetic Engineering to Create Plant-Based Meat ....................... 142 1. National BE Food Disclosure Standard Overview .. 143 2. Misleading Non-GMO Claims ................................. 145 3. Communicating Biotech Processes on Plant-Based Meat ......................................................................... 147 D. Eco-Labeling: Communicating Environmental Benefits .......................................................................... 153 1. Crafting Clear and Informative Eco-Labels ............. 158 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 160 OVERVIEW he global scientific community is calling for “a radical T transformation of the global food system” to change course from a food production system that threatens climate stability and ecosystem resilience and constitutes the single largest driver of environmental degradation and transgression of planetary boundaries. To achieve such a sweeping change will require a shift from current consumption patterns of meat and dairy in Western diets. This Article is the first legal scholarship to critically examine one market-based strategy to actualize the change—the production and widespread availability and acceptance of plant-based meat to shift consumers away from industrial animal-based meat—and to explore the role of labeling in effectuating the theory of change. In particular, this Article identifies and then applies the seemingly contrasting narratives of plant-based meat as both normal and transformative—that is, the same as, but critically different and better than animal-based meat. This Article analyzes labeling regulations regarding naming and credence claims to assess how plant-based meat will succeed in fulfilling the promises in these narratives. This Article offers a unique contribution to the growing dialogue and scholarship regarding social change and political consumerism in the context of meat consumption and reduction goals. INTRODUCTION Increasingly, evidence suggests that the global food system requires a large-scale transition to address climate change and critical human 2020] Taking (Animal-Based) Meat and Ethics off the Table: Food Labeling 93 and the Role of Consumers as Agents of Food Systems Change and planetary health challenges.1 One key feature of such a transition in industrialized Western societies is a shift away from the current levels of meat and other animal product consumption and toward increased consumption of more plant-based foods.2 Even as the environmental, public health, and animal welfare impacts of eating meat are made more widely known, eaters may feel ambivalent about meat consumption, but nevertheless resist the idea of eliminating or significantly reducing meat in their diets.3 High meat consumption patterns in the United States and other Western countries are maintained, often through coping strategies such as obscuring the animal origin of meat, the adaptation of beliefs,4 or strategic ignorance.5 To help actualize a shift to plant-based diets, start-up food 1 See Walter Willett et al., Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, 393 LANCET COMM’NS 447 (2019); EAT-LANCET COMM’N, SUMMARY REPORT OF THE EAT-LANCET COMMISSION 5 (2019), https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/07/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary _Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/FN4K-5MVE] (“Global food production threatens climate stability and ecosystem resilience and constitutes the single largest driver of environmental degradation and transgression of planetary boundaries. A radical transformation of the global food system is urgently needed.”). 2 Joseph Poore & Thomas Nemecek, Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts Through Producers and Consumers, 360 SCIENCE 987, 991 (2018). 3 Jennie Macdiarmid et al., Eating Like There’s No Tomorrow: Public Awareness of the Environmental Impact of Food and Reluctance to Eat Less Meat as Part of a Sustainable Diet, 96 APPETITE 487, 487 (2016) (noting that “[m]eat consumption is a complex and can be an emotive issue.” For example, “it has both positive and negative nutritional attributes. It can be a rich source of nutrients in the diet, providing high quality protein and essential micronutrients, but at the same time diets high in red, specifically processed meat, have been associated with increased risk of some chronic diseases.”). 4 Brock Bastian & Steve Loughnan, Resolving the Meat-Paradox: A Motivational Account of Morally Troublesome Behavior and Its Maintenance, 21 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCH. REV. 278, 278 (2017) (“Most people the world over eat meat, yet a vast majority of meat-eaters also find animal suffering offensive, emotionally disturbing, and potentially disruptive to their dietary habits. We term the apparent psychological conflict between people’s dietary preference for meat and their moral response to animal suffering ‘the meat- paradox.’”). The study concludes by stating that “[w]hen moral conflicts emerge, they are met with a suite of convenient beliefs about our (lack of) responsibility, the (lack of) harm it causes, and the (lack of) identity we would experience without it.” Id. at 293. 5 Marleen C. Onwezen & Cor N. van der Weele, When Indifference Is Ambivalence: Strategic Ignorance About Meat Consumption, 52 FOOD QUALITY & PREFERENCE 96, 103 (2016) (studying how different consumer groups make decisions about eating meat and characterizing consumers into the following categories: “Indifferent consumers do not experience conflicting thoughts [about eating meat]; Struggling consumers experience conflicting thoughts and accompanying negative emotions. Coping consumers and Strategically Ignorant consumers both found a way to deal with the conflicting thoughts, respectively by changing behaviour and by ignoring the meat-related issues.”); Cor van der 94 OREGON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 99, 91 companies are creating meat from plants that mimic the appearance, texture, and taste of conventional animal products. When offered at comparable prices and as conveniently as animal-based products, plant-based alternatives are a market-based strategy that “take[s] ethics off the table”6 and automatizes the purchase of plant-based products. Thus, for vegan advocates and plant-based food companies, these products are undeniably a way to “save the planet” without sacrificing taste or convenience or paying a premium to do so.7 For an increasingly large segment of the population that is “flexitarian” or “reducetarian,” shifting consumption away from animal-based products toward plant- based diets is a deliberate decision for ethical, environmental, or health reasons.8 For these eaters who consciously weigh the pros and cons of substituting plant-based for animal-based meats,9 it can be challenging to sift through the political rhetoric and narratives around the attributes that generally appeal to consumers, such as sustainability, naturalness, healthfulness, and overall transparency in how the product was made. This Article evaluates the market-based theory of change and examines the role of food labels in helping to advance or thwart that strategy in light of social science research regarding food choice, meat

Load more