With theBeyond Meat IPOarguably the most successful of 2019, plant-based foods are definitely big business. Some states such as Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Arkansashave passed lawsthat prohibit companies from using terms such as "veggie bacon,""cauliflower rice," and "almond milk" in product labeling.Because consumers have decreased their consumption of animal derived foods,the meat and dairy industry see these laws as helping their businesses.Some claim such laws will prevent consumers from being confused.A former FDA commissioner notably came out in support of a similar federal proposal by stating that it made sense because, "[a]n almond doesn't lactate." Meanwhile, manufacturers of plant-based foods argue that consumers do not suffer from any confusion.

Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. The rules about commercial speech com fromCentral Hudson v. Public ServiceCommission,447 U.S. 557 (1980). To determine whether government may regulate commercial speech, we look at a 4-part test. In order for a law restricting commercial speech to be considered constitutional, it must satisfy all 4 parts.If any of the 4requirements are not met,the law would be unconstitutional.

1. The speech must be about a lawful activity and it must not be misleading.
2. The government must state a substantial interest in regulating the speech.
3. The regulation imposed by the government must directly advance the interest asserted.
4. The regulation must not be more extensive than necessary.

Using the Central Hudson criteria, explain whether or not you think the laws restricting the use of termssuch as"veggie bacon,""cauliflower rice," and "almond milk"are constitutional (i.e.whether theyfulfill all of the criteria).