Question

With the Beyond Meat IPO arguably the most successful of 2019, plant-based foods are definitely big business. Some states such as Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Arkansas have passed laws that prohibit companies from using terms such as "veggie bacon," "cauliflower rice," and "almond milk" in product labeling. Because consumers have decreased their consumption of animal derived foods, the meat and dairy industry see these laws as helping their businesses. Some claim such laws will prevent consumers from being confused. A former FDA commissioner notably came out in support of a similar federal proposal by stating that it made sense because, "[a]n almond doesn't lactate." Meanwhile, manufacturers of plant-based foods argue that consumers do not suffer from any confusion.

Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. The rules about commercial speech com from Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). To determine whether government may regulate commercial speech, we look at a 4-part test. In order for a law restricting commercial speech to be considered constitutional, it must satisfy all 4 parts. If any of the 4 requirements are not met, the law would be unconstitutional.

1. The speech must be about a lawful activity and it must not be misleading.
2. The government must state a substantial interest in regulating the speech.
3. The regulation imposed by the government must directly advance the interest asserted.
4. The regulation must not be more extensive than necessary.

Answer the questions below in a response (250 words minimum) that you post to the discussion board. If appropriate, include personal experience as part of your answer.

1. Using the Central Hudson criteria, explain whether or not you think the laws restricting the use of terms such as "veggie bacon," "cauliflower rice," and "almond milk" are constitutional (i.e. whether they fulfill all of the criteria).
2. Read and respond to at least two other students' posts. Highlight the reason that you think most strongly supports your classmate's conclusion and explain why you agree or disagree. Each of your responses must be at least 50 words long.

Answer 1

answer-

There always been conflict in relation to first amendment which give rights to people freely express their views, opinion and speech and state laws which prohibit businesses that advertise and market thier product considering that they are protected under first amendement as well like supermacy clause but I think the laws restricting the use of terms such as "veggie bacon," "cauliflower rice," and "almond milk" are constitutional as they fullfil the 4 part test based on Central Hudson criteria. The 4 part test help us to know whether commercial speech can be regulated as constitutional or unconstitutional.

The first part of this test is that "The speech must be about a lawful activity and it must not be misleading." Lawful activity means activity must not harm and violate laws that are acceptable by government. Some states such as Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Arkansas including former FDA commissioner are in support of this law and accept it. It also state that such activities must not be misleading in nature. The activity is not misleading because it clearly state regulation will remove confusion of consumer.

The second part of this test is that "The government must state a substantial interest in regulating the speech." The prohibition of using such terms shows the interest of government to protect companies business like regulation to terms will save business of animal based product company, making competition healthy and protec consumers from misleading terms.

The third part of this test is that " The regulation imposed by the government must directly advance the interest asserted. " The prohibition on companies activities to stop such terms advances the interest because after such regulation dairy and meat companies are doing good business and customers are more aware.

The last part of this test is that "The regulation must not be more extensive than necessary." The regulation is only prohibiting commercial speech of such terms not other business activities so it is not extensive in nature just serving what it expressed.

so, based on the test, regulation is constitutional and i think all of you will also agree with me.