talks about misrepresenting a product as neat do your clients use that word meet in their advertising well perhaps you are g r is it your argument that meat sections of the same statute do require qualifiers subsection five requires disclosure and ten point type of certain churches subsection nodding requires  on the statute seems to limit it to any person who advertises or sells animal products in still why is tofurky even under this particular products so it would be difficult to know what the restriction is than if it's not animal products but the part of you that it could be that someone selling maybe someone selling animal products then kind of does a bait and switch in which one is is an animal based meat and which one is plant based meat products i don't know and maybe  law thinks that it is targeting a plant based and sell culture based meats and so that's been the interpretation and the question really is is well let me ask let me ask you this i'm not sure the analogy to the arkansas statute really works because and it's a different statute but what put that aside for a minute isn't the real crux of this dispute the term misrepresenting a product i mean the states taking the position that as long as it's clear on the face of the packaging that it's not animal babies but it's plant based that you're not misrepresenting the product now i will grant us are out there now probably ask mister smith about this i think the actually department of agriculture regulations muddy the water i think that i think there i think to make it more confusing rather  than helpful but but is long as you're not representing the product you're selling is animal based why should you have to worry  advertising and any written or oral speech and i guess that would be my my minions on the part of why we're worried about it certainly using these media terms it's important to to tofurkey you know being able to describe the texture of what people should spect like peanut butter no one's fooled but no one thinks well i don't think  getting that is what the proponents of this law were trying to stop and they were quite candid about what they were trying to do and i think that the department of agriculture memo supports that also there's no  don't they don't all so i think that brings up even more questions about what is covered and makes our clients concern but they could face jail that's a difference from arkansas there's no jail time  and speaker based restriction speech but at this stage at least central hudson i guess you could call normal scrutiny should apply it's intermediate but it's somewhat heightened misleading or deceptive and that's and in light of the different i have qualifiers that were pointed out during the sr up there's an argument that you know there are multiple words on these seven labels veggie guinn plant based these words show that all reasonable consumer would not be misled or deceived by those poor that x and those are those seven labels that too for he submitted are the statute covers advertisements and and other three wires of expression but we don't have any of those other forms of advertisement submitted by to turkey in the record so we are focused on labels for that reason  guidance regarding the how the department would have been the enforcement referrals under the new law and the department did not require any specific types of words or or such it simply said it if labels have qualifier such as these they would not be considered for referral and there's an important senate sat on that memorandum that says if the product is marketed as a meat language suggested that the department was going to give a lot of leeway to the products in the market and ensure that there was no no explicit requirements for words were l before the department considered any referrals mister smith the get the guidance from the department of agriculture is just that it's not part of the statute so how could a  key or any other company be assured that that's exactly how it would be applied and even says that it can be changed as necessary in the future yes you know that's of misrepresented in the statute that can't change and that still remains the you know it's focused on the use of any and true misleading or deceptive statement and so we're godless what the department i'd also like to mention the arkansas case we agree that it's not exactly the same because it is a different statute the arkansas had six different provisions that were challenged some of those provisions had language such as that you could not sell under the name of another food or it adopted the definitions and standards of identity for products that were are being existence under state or federal law importantly between arkansas and missouri arkansas uses the phrase represent a product as me rather than missouri which uses misrepresented and this is an important  position that there was in force met and the state argued that it and to a particular labels were inherently misleading as a matter of fact and the court did the analysis that we were just discussing a few minutes ago where we looked at the same seven labels that we have in the record before us and it pointed out the different uses of begin vegetarian and plant they still find that those were not misleading so the district court's opinion in arkansas is actually consistent with the state's position here that those those labels are not misleading and therefore would that it would apply more broadly to products that are not meat based but only if they are misleading you mean subsection seven was added after the rest of the statute was already in place and so you say it would make sense to add seven yes your honor but you still have a preamble that says the object of the prohibition and subsection seven that we're looking at but i don't have the steps or history in front of me and it was let not part of the record but well the preamble you're right does talk about carpets or food plan  if they're offered together with meat yes you're on i'm still on stand why you think that means someone who's selling exclusively not be would ever be covered fifteen days and there's been no evidence on the record at beneath prosecutions any threat of prosecutions by or any referrals by the department of agriculture for any product but especially not  sufficient ground for vacating the preliminary injunction so that's why this is an important factor given the time that this case has been underway to to point out that there is just not that evidence to show there's not the that threat injury is not certainly impending or there's nassib central risk of injury as the supreme court cases have said is necessary to establish standing and they specifically appear to walk through the two  at the new statute in telling people about it that certainly can't be enough to establish standing for tofurky again it's been no evidence that they have received any threats of prosecution they haven't shown that no prosecutions and there were never any complaints about people being confused about this issue before the law was passed but this is a st amendment case and what we've got lunch is a chilling effect as an clar especially where there's a possibility of companies are concerned about well what about the position that the state takes that well there's nothing none of that's in the record all we've got are these what seven labels and if you did put it he thing in the record how can how can that be