[keep_reading]

They're allowed to put all sorts of things on food packaging because of "free speech". One example is misleading unprotected terms of provenance.

e.g., Port wine made in California isn't really Port wine, but it's allowed on the market under that name.

Funny enough the only thing that really is protected like this is Scotch Whisky due to a trade agreement that has us hunting down any producer in the USA that advertises an American whiskey as a Scotch whisky.

Don't forget that "free range" chicken doesn't mean shit, neither does "grass fed" beef.

False advertising on food is everywhere in the USA.

[crazygringo]

No. None of those have anything to do with the principle of free speech.

Port wine has a legal definition in the US. You can't sell it as champagne or as cola.

However, it is true that ingredient, food and drink labels may have different definitions from those used in other countries, or from what you personally think they should be.

But they still have actual definitions that have to be followed. (Except for subjective, non-technical terms like "tasty", "artisanal", etc.)