>Right now, under current laws, there'd be little to stop you if you got certified organic and met the incredibly minimal requirements for free range/cage free/

>Right now, under current laws, there'd be little to stop you if you got certified organic and met the incredibly minimal requirements for free range/cage free/whatever. Two things. One, in my example my chickens are not free range or organic. Two, the first part of any legal argument is a moral one. In that first we decide what is morally right or wrong and then we make a law that fits it if appropriate. So ignoring the laws that prevent me, is it morally right to sell non-organic, non-free range chicken as 'organic free-range chicken'? I'd say the answer is an obvious no but maybe you disagree. Following that should we maybe institute a law that enshrines that and helps us keep chicken farmers like me from misleading consumers into buying a product that isn't what it says on the box? I'd say yes. >but to pretend that stores need to have some magic legally protected area just for meat products lest people accidentally purchase dreaded vegetable protein is industry promoted nonsense. The article makes it clear that while meat producers are annoyed at the presence of these products in the meat aisle, they are only pursuing legal remedies in regards to the terms used to market them - 'meat' and 'beef' (and I'd bet 'chicken' and 'pork' will follow shortly.) >A meat shelf is not a constitutionally protected phenomenon. No one is arguing that.