top of page
AUTHORSHIP
28 July 2026
The "FAIR Labels Act" push reflects agribusiness’ capture of food policy, not consumers' interests
Far from ensuring ‘fairness in labeling,’ the legislation is designed to undercut competition to agribusiness, not protect consumers’ rights
Attribution: Curated Lifestyle' (Unsplash)
I. Introduction
ISSUE AREAS
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
CONSUMER PROTECTION
For decades, meat industry interests and its allies in government have worked to undermine competition from alternative food sources, namely plant-based foods. A combination of regulatory capture and a sustained public relations campaign to discredit plant-based foods’ nutritional value has allowed the industry to maintain its dominance. This includes amplifying inaccurate claims about plant-based foods’ nutritional content, alongside a misleading narrative concerning alternative milks’ environmental impact that ignores the meat and dairy industry’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution. The rise of consolidation in the meat industry has been accompanied by a decline in family farms, undermining the economic health of rural communities in the process. Recent advances in cell-cultured ('lab-grown') meat, a humane and energy-efficient alternative to conventional animal agriculture, have been met with a similarly aggressive lobbying campaign by industry interests seeking to ban it outright.
In recent years, industry lobbyists have advocated for labeling legislation governing plant-based foods in statehouses across the country. At the federal level, the “FAIR Labels Act” has been reintroduced this session by Sens. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) and John Fetterman (D-PA). Backed by leading agribusiness trade groups, the bill, ostensibly a pro-consumer measure designed to ensure transparency, in reality would implement arduous federal rules that would effectively tip the scale against plant-based and cell-cultured competitors. If enacted, the legislation would put in place requirements for plant-based foods to advertise under bureaucratic, consumer-unfriendly product names, a standard that would not apply to meat products. Accordingly, the bill should be seen as a competitive suppression effort by agribusiness interests concerned about their long-term market position should they be forced to compete on equal grounds.
II. Flawed Premise and Harmful Consequences
CONSUMER DECEPTION FALLACY
The FAIR Labels Act rests upon the dubious premise that American consumers are routinely misled by plant-based product names. Under the legislation, terms such as “plant-based ground beef”, which clearly identify vegetarian sourcing, would be replaced by state-mandated descriptors such as “ground plant-based alternative protein”. Mandating that plant-based products be sold with bureaucratic, commercially-unappealing names instead of standard labeling, such as “plant-based chicken,” serves to undermine the product’s viability, not to promote transparency. While media attention has centered on a recent decline in sales, plant-based foods continue to be a multi-billion dollar market with a substantial consumer base.
The notion that a significant portion of plant-based food sales stem accidental purchases of popular products under the belief that they contain meat does not seem likely. Meat industry interests’ focus on this issue stands out as peculiar given that there exists far more pressing labeling issues in the food industry. In particular, common ‘humane meat’ branding such as “grass-fed beef” or “free range chicken”, along with labels such as "cage-free eggs,” have been widely criticized as misleading consumers over the conditions of the animals involved.
As it stands, existing misbranding laws are already sufficient to prevent genuine consumer deception concerning plant-based meat alternatives.In response to draft guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) noted that the “fair labeling” push selectively disadvantages plant-based foods over other food products. The organization noted that both common branding terms like “plant-based fish sticks” and commercially-unappealing labels such as “chickpea & lentil-based fish sticks” serve the purpose of identifying themselves as not deriving from animal proteins. And as the PBFA noted further, products such as soybean or canola oils are permitted to advertise using generic terms such as “vegetable oils"’; this has seemingly not received similar pushback from meat industry lobbyists.
INDUSTRY CAPTURE OF FOOD POLICY
Though the value or lack thereof of a legislative proposal cannot be solely assessed by its support, the legislation’s backers in industry do make it apparent who the bill is designed for. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a trade industry representing U.S. beef producers, has provided strong public support for the bill, claiming that it is necessary to protect consumers’ rights. Similarly, the legislation has received support from other leading industry groups, including the National Chicken Council and the National Pork Producers Council. The NCBA in particular has been criticized by consumer advocates for aligning itself with the interests of large meatpacking conglomerates over small farmers.
The political influence wielded by agribusiness may be less visible than the reach of more recognizable lobbies, such as those representing tech sector and financial industry interests. Nevertheless, consolidated agribusiness wields significant policy sway with its reach extending from Washington to statehouses across the country. Industry groups have supported the successful passage of legislation to restrict the use of “meaty” terms on plant-based products in several states, with Missouri and Mississippi passing initial legislation in the late 2010s. Recent breakthrough developments in the realm of cell-cultured meat production have caused significant alarm in the meat industry, which has taken to supporting state bans on its production. The backlash against cell-cultured meat has emerged as a culture war flashpoint among political conservatives; in the year 2025 alone, five Republican-controlled states (Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas) implemented prohibitions on cell-cultured meat production.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT
The ability of industry groups to influence public policy in ways that undermine potential competition comes at the expense of all consumers, regardless of dietary preference. In the context of food policy, this carries consequences that extend beyond market dynamism and into the realm of both public health and environmental sustainability. Research has affirmed that adopting full or partial plant-based diets reduces the risk of serious health issues including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, as well as certain cancers. Experts have also called attention to plant-based food options’ nutritional advantages over animal products. This includes dietary fiber, which is believed to help lower the risk of colorectal cancer, of particular importance given rising rates among younger people.
Regulations designed to undermine the viability of plant-based and cell-cultured meat products in favor of agribusiness also carry environmental implications. In the U.S. domestic meat market, some 10 billion land animals are slaughtered for food annually, with some 99% raised in factory farms known for both inhumane conditions and emitting pollutants. In conjunction with the broader footprint of meat production, namely deforestation initiatives to create areas for grazing, the dominant model of animal meat product has major environmental consequences. Research indicates that cell-cultured meat production requires lower energy than conventional animal agriculture. With the United States and much of the world embroiled in an energy crisis, Congress should not pass legislation to unfairly privilege a mode of food production at the expense of more sustainable alternatives.
III. Conclusion
It is notable that Fetterman, who positioned himself as a political populist in his initial 2022 Senate candidacy and expressed concern that the USDA unfairly prioritizes ‘big money interests in livestock and poultry market’, is the lone Senate Democrat to support legislation that would further entrench the power of agribusiness firms. When considering the health benefits of plant-based alternatives, Republican co-sponsors’ support for legislation that would systematically undermine the viability of healthier food options calls further into question the sincerity of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement. More broadly, both the legislation and similar efforts should be seen as manifestations of Congress’ deference to the interests of agribusiness at the expense of a strong national food policy.
Rather than further tilt the scales in favor of the industry, legislators should consider initiatives to help empower consumer food choice. The meat and dairy industries have long wielded significant influence on school diets; legislation such as the Plant Powered School Meals Pilot Act, proposed by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), would be a good step in giving Americans alternative food options from a young age, thus instilling the importance of real consumer choice. Similarly, legislation such as a recent proposal by members of the Monopoly Busters Caucus to break up meatpacking monopolies in order to encourage food industry competition should be given priority. This pro-competitive measure, in conjunction with other efforts to rein in price gouging at the grocery store, would help provide relief for Americans faced with soaring food prices.
Aidan Smith
Founder, Labyrinth Insights
bottom of page