Search results for: oklahoma

  • On May 7, 2026, Oklahoma’s governor signed SB2028. The new law raises the monthly cap on direct raw milk sales from 100 gallons to 1,500 gallons and allows farmers and producers to advertise their ungraded raw milk and raw milk products.
  • Consumer sales of raw milk and raw milk products are only permitted on the farm where the raw milk or raw milk products are produced. In addition, raw milk producers must inform consumers that the product is not licensed, regulated, or inspected and must label the product to indicate that it is raw or unpasteurized milk and include the date the milk was filled.
  • The passage of SB2028 reflects the broader trend of several states introducing or passing legislation related to raw milk despite the fact that raw milk can carry harmful bacteria such as Salmonella, E.coli, and Listeria monocytogenes. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been a champion for raw milk, and his support has brought renewed attention to the raw milk movement.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor any developments related to the regulation of raw milk.
  • Last month the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed for lack of standing an amended complaint filed by the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) and the Tofurky Company challenging the “Oklahoma Meat Consumer Protection Act” (the “Act”). The Court had previously dismissed an earlier iteration of the lawsuit.
  • The Act prohibits any person “advertising, offering for sale or selling meat” from “misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock,” but indicates that plant-based meat products do not violate the Act so long as their packaging bears a disclosure that the product is derived from plants. “Meat” is defined as “any edible portion of livestock or part thereof.”
  • The Court recited the well-known tenants of Article III standing. Namely, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) injury in fact, (2) causation between the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) that a favorable decision would be likely to redress the injury.
  • The Court held that Defendants could not demonstrate injury because the Act’s text literally only applied to persons “advertising, offering for sale or selling meat,” the definition of “meat” did not encompass plant-based meat products, and Defendants (including PBFA’s members) could not show that they sold meat. Although the Court recognized that this construction was clearly inconsistent with the Act’s intent to prevent misleading marketing of plant-based meat products, it stated that the task of re-writing the statute was for the legislature.
  • The Court also held that causation could not be established because neither of the Defendants (the OK Governor and the OK Commissioner of Agriculture) had the authority to enforce the Act. The State Board of Agriculture was charged with enforcing the law and the Commissioner was only one member of the Board. Furthermore, the Court held that OK does not have a unitary executive and the governor of OK is not charged with enforcement (unlike many other states). Finally, the redressability element was not met where there was no power to enforce the Act. 
  • As an update to our coverage of on-going litigation of plant-based product labeling, an Oklahoma federal judge recently refused to block a state law that requires plant-based food companies include a disclaimer on labels if they use a meat term to describe their products. As our readers know, in September, Upton’s Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Foods Association filed suit against the state of Oklahoma challenging the constitutionality of the Meat Consumer Protection Act (“the Act”). The Act requires that plant-based food companies include a disclaimer the size of the product’s name if they use terms like “burger,” “hotdog,” “meatball,” “jerky,” “sausage,” “chorizo,” and “bacon,” even if the labels state the products are “meatless,” “vegan,” or “plant-based.”
  • Plaintiffs argued that the law was passed to prevent competition with the meat industry and violates the First Amendment. Upton’s Naturals had sought a preliminary injunction against the law. However, on November 19, U.S. District Judge Stephen P. Friot disagreed and ruled that the Act did not violate the Constitution.
  • Judge Friot said he had “no trouble” deciding that the speech at issue is potentially misleading to a reasonable consumer because Upton’s Naturals packaging includes terms like “bacon,” “hot dog,” “jerky,” and “meatballs.” Indeed, Judge Friot stated that “[w]hile plaintiffs argue that the government cannot make these meat-related terms potentially misleading by virtue of its definition of meat, the court notes that all of the meat-related terms, except burger, are also defined in the Dictionary by Merriam-Webster…to indicate they are animal-based.”
  • The judge rejected Upton’s Naturals argument that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1980 decision in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. should apply to the case, which held that a government may restrict commercial speech that is neither misleading nor about unlawful activity as long as the government has a substantial interest in restricting that speech. However, Judge Friot disagreed, stating that “the challenged provision of the act does not restrict speech as in Central Hudson. It requires disclosure of information.” Instead, Judge Friot applied the 1985 decision in Zauderer, which held that compelled disclosure of commercial speech comports with the First Amendment if the information is “reasonably related to a substantial governmental interest and is purely factual.”
  • Upton’s Naturals intends to appeal Judge Friot’s decision to the Tenth Circuit. We will continue to monitor any developments.
  • On September 16, 2020, Upton’s Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Foods Association filed a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma, challenging the constitutionality of the Meat Consumer Protection Act (“the Act”), a recent law that requires plant-based food companies to include a disclaimer if they use a meat term, such as “burger,” “hotdog,” “meatball,” “jerky,” “sausage,” “chorizo,” and “bacon.”  In the lawsuit, plaintiffs argue that this law was passed to prevent competition with the meat industry and that it violates the First Amendment.  This law passed earlier this year and will take effect on November 1, 2020.
  • By way of background, the Act bars plant-based foods from being labeled with meat terms without a disclaimer, which must be the size of the product’s name, even if they are labeled “meatless,” “vegan” or “plant-based.”  The Act expressly prohibits advertising “a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock.”  However, the Act states that “product packaging for plant-based items shall not be considered in violation of [the Act] so long as the packaging displays that the product is derived from plant-based sources in type that is uniform in size and prominence to the name of the product.”
  • States, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming have enacted laws similar to the one in Oklahoma.  The lawsuit against Oklahoma differs from previous complaints filed because of the size requirement included in the mandate.  In the lawsuit, plaintiffs state that the Act would require companies to redesign their labels specifically to suit the regulations in Oklahoma, which will require a substantial amount of time and resources in order to ensure compliance for a single state.  According to the complaint, no other state besides Oklahoma requires plant-based food labeling to have disclaimers the same size as their product names.
  • Violations of the law can include fines of up to $10,000 for each offense and are considered misdemeanors, which can result in up to a year in prison.  We will continue to monitor any developments.
  • It has been reported that a coalition of more than 100 groups, including food and agriculture groups, school districts, food service professionals, and nutrition experts wrote a letter to USDA urging it to classify pulse-based pastas as meat alternatives in the Department’s Child Nutrition Programs.   
  • The Child Nutrition Programs includes detailed meal pattern requirements, including minimum amounts and types of foods, that must be offered for reimbursable meals. These vary by program and meal, but many require a meat/meat alternate component, which currently cannot be satisfied by pulse pastas. The coalition argues that pulse-based pastas are packed with nutrients, including protein, and that the change would promote their use and is consistent with the updated dietary guidelines which call for nutrient-dense protein foods to be prioritized.  
  • The Coalition also urged USDA to update the list of creditable ingredients in its Food Buying Guide to include pulse flour products to make them more accessible to participating programs.
  • The coalition consists of various groups including manufacturers and trade associations. In a policy positions paper, pulse trade group USA Pulse has called for legislation supporting the increased use of pulse crops, including foods like soybeans, lentils, and legumes, in school meal programs. USA Pulse also calls for laws that allow pureed pulses and pulse-derived ingredients in federally reimbursable meals.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor food industry developments.

  • A civil forfeiture action filed by the government (Plaintiff) in 2023 to seize kratom products held by Botanic Tonics, LLC came to an end on January 5th when the Court issued a judgment ending the action in response to the Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal (without prejudice). The Plaintiff’s notice indicated that Botanic Tonics had represented that the products in question were expired, and that Plaintiff had therefore determined that “it would not be a prudent use of government resources to sustain the action.”
  • The original action had alleged that seizure was appropriate because the products contained a new dietary ingredient (Kratom) for which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury (21 USC 342(f)(1)(B)). The government alleged that there were “serious safety concerns” regarding the effect of kratom. A motion to dismiss the action was denied in December of 2025.
  • The case is United States v. 250,000 filled bottles of liquid product (4:23-cv-00168) and was filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
  • On June 20, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 261 into law banning the “manufacture, processing, possession, distribution, offer for sale, and sale of cell-cultured protein” starting on September 1, 2025. The law will be in force until September 1, 2027, where the state legislature will then assess whether to cease or continue the ban. The law defines cell-cultured protein as “a food product derived from harvesting animal cells and artificially replicating those cells in a growth medium to produce tissue.” Violations of the ban are punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $4,000, or both. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.21.
  • In support of SB 261, the Texas House of Representatives cited concerns over cell-cultured protein posing “safety risks for consumers, as its creation process involves direct interaction with microplastics that can cause disruptions in the human cell membrane.”
  • Opponents of the law argue that it conflicts with federal oversight. As we reported previously, lab-grown meat was first approved for sale in the United States in 2023. Both FDA and USDA share regulatory jurisdiction over the industry as detailed in a 2019 memorandum of understanding between the agencies. The FDA oversees the cell collection and growth process, while USDA is responsible for the labeling and inspection of the final product.
  • Texas now joins Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Nebraska in enacting lab-grown meat laws this year, while Alabama and Florida did so last year. In March 2025, the Oklahoma House approved a similar bill, but it did not pass through the Senate.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to cell-cultured meat.
  • Several states have recently introduced or passed legislation related to raw milk, reflecting a growing interest in unpasteurized milk despite the fact that raw milk can carry harmful bacteria such as Salmonella, E.coli, and Listeria, posing serious health risks. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) strongly advise against consuming raw milk due to these dangers and have implemented regulations to limit its sale. 
  • Despite the long-standing position at both agencies, the new Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been a vocal advocate for raw milk promoting its benefits and criticizing regulatory restrictions.  His support has brought renewed attention to the raw milk movement, influencing legislative efforts.
    • Arkansas Bill HB 1048: This bill would allow the sale of raw goat milk, sheep milk, and whole milk directly to consumers at the farm, at farmer’s markets, or via delivery by the farm.
    • Utah Bill HB414: This bill has passed the House and is now before the Senate.  This bill establishes enforcement steps for raw milk suspected in foodborne illness outbreaks, aiming to protect consumers.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor any developments related to the regulation of raw milk.
  • In a 16-page order, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick dismissed with prejudice customer Angela Kennard’s putative class action she filed last year against Kellogg Sales Co. over its use of the term “veggie” in several of its MorningStar Farms line of meatless products such as its burgers, hot dogs, chicken nuggets, patties, sausage links, bacon stripes, chicken wings and more. As our readers may recall, we reported on the Morningstar Farms “veggie” product labeling suit in April after Kellogg moved to dismiss the amended suit, citing several decisions in similar false labeling suits, such as the opinion issued by the Ninth Circuit in Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc., where the panel ruled no reasonable customer would believe the company’s use of the term “diet” promised weight loss or management.
  • Plaintiff Kennard alleged Kellogg’s Morningstar Farms “veggie” products mislead consumers because the word “veggie” indicates that the main or only ingredients in the products are vegetables or made from vegetables, adding that customers she surveyed said they largely understood “veggie” to refer to vegetable-based products. Plaintiff accused the food and beverage company of violating California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws, as well as a myriad of federal rules regulating the labeling of food products, and breaching warranties. However, on September 15, the  Northern District of California decided that Kellogg’s use of the term “veggie” on its labels is, at most, ambiguous and could refer to meat substitutes.
  • Judge Orrick said he didn’t think the term “veggie” on the products’ labels was false, misleading or misbranded or that it violates any federal food labeling requirements or state laws. The term “veggie” is ambiguous in the way it is used on the packaging, and the photos and information on the packaging doesn’t convey the product uses any particular vegetables. “I agree that the [Plaintiff’s’] allegations are implausible and do not support a reasonable inference that some significant portion of consumers would be misled into thinking the VEGGIE products are made primarily of vegetables as opposed to being vegetarian meat substitutes made from grains, oils, legumes, or other ingredients,” Judge Orrick maintained. Additionally, the product packaging features items that imitate meat, and consumers can readily identify the actual ingredients in the products on the packaging, the judge said.
  • In recent years, laws have been passed all over the country that restrict the use of the term “meat” in product labeling, including in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and others. For example, Missouri passed a law in 2018 prohibiting a seller or advertiser from “misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry.” Similarly, many of these other states’ laws require that only foods derived from food-producing animals may contain labels with terms like “meat, “burger,” “sausage” and the like.
  • In light of these recent labeling lawsuits and related legislation, marketers must be mindful of any representations they are making — whether in words or pictures — that might convey claims about a product’s contents. Keller and Heckman will continue to follow and report developments relating to the growing number of labeling claims challenges.
  • A proposed class action lawsuit filed on February 4 alleged that Poland Spring sparkling water, owned by BlueTriton Brands, Inc., misled consumers with the claim “a twist of lemon” because the water lacked “the amount and type of lemon ingredients expected by plaintiff and consumers” (subscription to Law360 required). As alleged in the complaint, customers expect the lemon flavor to come from lemon oil, lemon extract, or lemon juice, instead of natural flavors.
  • The plaintiff, Timothy Alexander, argued that the claim “a twist of lemon” refers to the “literal twisting of the outer portion of a lemon round,” and would cause a consumer to believe that the water contained actual lemon juice. However, as estimated in the complaint, the water likely only contained approximately 0.1 mL of lemon ingredients.
  • In addition to the “a twist of lemon” claim, the label also declared a characterizing flavor statement, or as referred to in the complaint as a “disclaimer.” Alexander argued that the “disclaimer” (i.e., “naturally flavored spring water with other natural flavors and CO2”) is “used so extensively on labeling that is has become the equivalent of a labeling tic, affixed to a majority of products with added flavoring,” and thus does not inform consumers that the product does not contain an appreciable amount of lemon.
  • The complaint stated that the value of the water purchased by Alexander was materially less than the value represented by BlueTriton, and that more water was sold at higher prices than would have been had the “a twist of lemon” claim not been declared on the label. Alexander seeks to represent customers in Illinois under the state’s customer fraud and deceptive practices law, as well as customers in Iowa, Arizona, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, Michigan, Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, and Oklahoma as part of a separate consumer fraud multistate class.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and report on the outcome of the Poland Spring lawsuit as well as other labeling claim challenges.