The regulatory landscape for plant-based beverages and animal-derived alternatives is shifting rapidly. We highlight the evolving landscape, emerging challenges, and strategies for staying prepared.
Regulatory and legal pressures are reshaping the plant-based marketplace
Consumer interest in plant-based products has grown steadily, with growing consumer demand for plant-based alternatives to animal products like meat, dairy, and eggs. As the plant-based product industry has matured, brand owners, manufacturers, and product sellers have faced increasing regulatory challenges at the federal, state, and local levels. State regulators have shown particular interest in tightening labeling standards and clarifying marketing requirements for alternatives like oat milk, almond yogurt, and plant-based proteins. For brand owners, manufacturers, and retailers operating across multiple jurisdictions, navigating this evolving landscape is an operational imperative.
FDA’s draft guidance on plant-based milk and other alternatives
While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulatory oversight of the production and labeling of plant-based foods, the FDA has not issued regulations specifying plant-based alternative labeling requirements. In recent years, however, the FDA has addressed plant-based alternative product labeling, particularly in the milk category, through voluntary, non-binding labeling guidance. In its 2023 draft guidance, Labeling of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives and Voluntary Nutrient Statements, the agency acknowledged that consumers commonly refer to plant-based beverages as “milk” and generally understand that they do not contain dairy. Through this guidance, FDA is signaling that it is allowing terms like “almond milk” and “soy milk,” when the product’s plant source is clearly identified, and the FDA therefore has not deemed such labeling as misleading. FDA’s 2023 guidance also contained recommendations for when brand owners should use voluntary nutrient statements comparing the product’s nutritional profile to that of dairy milk (e.g., “Contains 25% more calcium than dairy milk”). FDA’s 2023 approach aimed to reduce overall consumer confusion about plant-based milk alternatives without banning terminology that consumers understood, reflecting a consumer-friendly and flexible stance.
In January 2025, the FDA expanded its guidance on plant-based alternatives and issued new draft guidance that covers products serving as substitutes for a variety of animal-derived foods, including dairy, eggs, meat, seafood, and poultry. The updated guidance emphasizes best practices for naming and labeling certain plant-based foods that are marketed and sold as alternatives to conventional animal products. 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.[1] The FDA is expected to finalize the guidance later this year, following review of public comments submitted by the May 7, 2025, deadline.
State laws are creating a patchwork of labeling obligations
In the absence of federal regulations requiring specific labeling for plant-based products, some states have passed strict labeling laws aimed at preventing the use of meat and milk-related terminology to promote plant-based products. For example, Missouri, the first state to restrict plant-based meat labeling in 2018, prohibits labeling products as “meat” unless they come from harvested livestock or poultry, and requires qualifiers like “plant-based” to clarify the source.[2] Other states, such as Oklahoma, have enacted laws that require any plant-based product using meat or dairy terms to include a disclaimer of comparable size and prominence.[3] States adopting these laws also generally emphasize a focus on ensuring that plant-based products do not “misrepresent” nutritional equivalence or origin, and that labels do not cause consumer confusion.
Most recently, state labeling laws on plant-based products have begun focusing more on dairy and milk-related terminology. For instance, the 2025 Florida Farm Bill, which was signed into law on May 19, 2025, includes stringent labeling restrictions for plant-based food products. The legislation prohibits the use of terms such as “milk,” “meat,” “poultry,” or “eggs” on plant-based items unless they are derived 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.
While state labeling laws vary in specificity, implementation, and enforcement rigor, collectively, they signal an ongoing trend in state regulations aimed at ensuring plant-based products are clearly labeled with source and nutrient information. Additionally, while some of these laws raise legal questions related to preemption, free speech, and First Amendment rights, companies must nevertheless monitor and adapt to a growing patchwork of state-level labeling requirements to avoid brand reputation risks and potential litigation and enforcement liability.
Broader considerations for plant-based alternative brands
To protect brand integrity and minimize legal exposure, brand owners, manufacturers, and sellers of plant-based products should ensure that regulatory considerations are factored into product label and marketing decisions for plant-based products. Best practices include:
- Consider and Assess FDA Guidance and Policy Statements: Assess FDA recommendations on terminology and nutrient disclosures to reduce enforcement risk and demonstrate good faith compliance.
- Audit for State-Specific Risks: Conduct regular labeling compliance audits, with considerations for each state in which products are sold, focusing on labeling language, disclaimers, and font size/placement.
- Coordinate Regulatory and Marketing Teams: Ensure that legal, compliance, and marketing departments are coordinating effectively on brand strategies and labeling content, including terminology use and product claims across labeling, packaging, and promotional materials.
- Monitor Legislative Activity: Stay alert to emerging state legislation and regulation, which may introduce stringent labeling requirements and potential regulatory and liability risks.
- Ongoing Consumer Litigation: Stay abreast of consumer litigation trends and identify potential risk areas.
Brand owners should also proactively and periodically review all labeling, marketing, and packaging, with specific considerations for plant-based product categories, including:
- Clear Ingredient Disclosure: Labels should adhere to legal requirements regarding the source description (e.g., “soy-based cheese alternative”).
- Avoiding Nutritional Misrepresentation: Reviews should carefully assess claims of equivalence or superiority in light of legal requirements that claims be adequately substantiated.
- Packaging and Marketing Alignment: All brand messaging should reflect consistent terminology across all mediums and fora.
Now is the perfect time to assess whether your labeling, marketing, and brand strategies for plant-based products are aligned with evolving federal and state regulations. With deep legal insight and practical industry knowledge, our team helps plant-based brands stay compliant, mitigate enforcement risks, and maintain consumer trust. Nixon Peabody's Food, Beverage, and Agribusiness attorneys can support your business in navigating these regulatory changes with confidence and clarity. For more information on this content, please reach out to your Nixon Peabody attorney or the author of this article.
- Under the draft guidance, food products that do not have standards of identity must be labeled with their common or usual names. In the absence of a common or usual name, foods should be labeled with an accurate description of the food. Manufacturers may include the name of animal-derived foods, such as “cheese” in the common or usual name or statement of identity of plant-based alternative foods, but the labeling should not suggest to consumers that animal sources are present or have been used as ingredients. Consumers should be able to know the specific plant source(s) in the food product, such as soybeans in “soy-based cheddar cheese” and black beans and mushrooms in “black bean mushroom veggie patties.” Consumers should also be able to distinguish similar products from one another. For example, soy-based alternatives should be distinguished from alternatives that are almond-based. While the predominant plant source(s) should be part of the product name, all plant source(s) must be in the ingredient statement.
[back to reference ] - Mo. Rev. Stat. § 265.494.
[back to reference ] - See e.g., Okla. Stat. tit. 2, § 5-107.
[back to reference ]