BOSTON — Owners, manufacturers and retailers of plant-based meat, dairy and egg alternatives are confronting challenges about how to comply with shifting labeling laws by different states and apply best marketing practices to ensure brand resilience.

Chris Schlag, counsel in Boston-based Nixon Peabody’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) practice, took a legal lens to the areas in a recent client guidance article posted on the law firm’s website.

“I always start with they need to have an idea of their brand and their overall purpose and who their stakeholders are,” she told Food Business News. “The reason I say this is knowing the brand audience would drive how they’re doing their branding and their marketing … Once they know that, … it will help them better define how they want to put things on label and how to market.”

Labeling requirements can differ greatly depending on the specific product and the jurisdiction. Particularly when it comes to milk or other dairy alternatives, Schlag said there are going to be limiting considerations about the types of advertising or marketing claims that are permissible on a product label.

She cited as an example plant-based milk brands looking to highlight some sort of sustainability claim on labels.

“A lot of almond milk and plant-based products may want to note green claims such as climate-friendly or environmentally friendly on the basis that they are not animal-derived,” Schlag said.

However, she said it’s important to know where that product is going and not simply assume such claims will pass legal muster in every state today.

Schlag’s article also noted that state labeling laws on plant-based products have started concentrating more on dairy and milk-related terms. The recently signed 2025 Florida Farm Bill, for example, forbids the use of “milk,” “meat,” “poultry” or “eggs” on plant-based products unless they come from corresponding animal sources.

“As a next step, the Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services will be issuing regulations clarifying labeling requirements for plant-based products, including expectations for labeling of products as ‘milk’ and prohibiting the sale of plant-based products labeled as ‘milk’ in the state of Florida,” she wrote.

Because the Florida law came up through statute about how to implement regulations, “… we need to wait and see how it will be implemented through regulations,” Schlag said, adding, “Product bans based on labeling require implementing regulations to be enforced at the state level."

As plant-based brand owners encounter differing state-level labeling regulations, she suggested they ask regulators about ways to comply.

“This will help to have conversations with agencies and regulators about what you’re proposing to do,” Schlag said. “They’re much more receptive if you explain why (a product) is labeled this way.”

Meanwhile, plant-based labeling guidance soon may be coming from the federal level. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released draft guidance in January covering alternatives to animal-based foods, including dairy, eggs, meat, seafood and poultry (but excluding plant-based milk alternatives).

According to Schlag’s article, this updated guidance underscores best practices for naming and labeling certain plant-based foods marketed and sold as alternatives to conventional animal products.

The FDA is expected to finalize its draft guidance for the labeling of alternatives to animal-based foods later this year.

| Photo: ©GGUY – STOCK.ADOBE.COM

“Overall, FDA’s guidance conveys that plant-based labels must be truthful, clearly state the nature and source of the product (e.g., ‘plant-based sausage made from soy protein’) and should not be misleading,” she wrote.

Following a review of public comments received by the May 7 deadline, the FDA is expected to finalize the draft guidance later this year.

Schlag said once there is finalized federal guidance on plant-based labeling, there may be less of a trend among states to provide their own regulatory guidance.

“With that said, there is some case law where FDA guidance is a base, and states can have additional guidance as long as they’re not conflicting with what FDA has said,” she said.

The Plant-Based Foods Association (PBFA), the US trade association for plant-based food companies and industry partners, has taken a negative stance toward FDA's draft labeling guidance and urged that it be withdrawn. Calling it “unprecedented, unfair and unnecessary,” the PBFA said the draft guidance poses “potential roadblocks for the plant-based foods industry” by requiring special obligations for plant-based foods when current regulations “are sufficient to prevent deception and inform consumers.”

As the US regulatory scene continues to shift, Schlag said producers of plant-based alternatives can respond to consumer trends by paying attention to what the FDA is doing regarding front-of-pack labeling. They also may provide feedback in public meetings and stakeholder sessions and ask whether what they’re hearing is consistent with the messages they’re getting from consumers about transparency or if there’s some kind of disconnect.

“They may be getting feedback that FDA isn’t necessarily getting,” she said, adding that plant-based brands may have regulations that don’t necessarily align with consumer expectations for labeling, so what’s important is to pay attention to the regulatory sphere and engage in that conversation.