Plant-based labeling crackdown? EC draft regulation targets 29 “meat-related” terms

The European Commission (EC) has proposed new restrictions on the use of traditional meat-related terms by plant-based food products, reigniting a contentious debate in the food industry over labeling, transparency, and innovation. The draft regulation — part of a revision of the Common Market Organization Regulation to amend Regulation No 1308/2013 — seeks to ban 29 “meat” specific terms.

“Specific legal provisions should be introduced to protect meat-related terms in order to enhance transparency in the internal market as regards food composition and nutritional content and ensure that consumers can make well-informed choices, particularly for those seeking a specific nutritional content that is traditionally associated with meat products,” the proposal reads.

“Meat-related terms often carry cultural and historical significance. It is therefore appropriate to protect meat-related terms.”

The proposal also states that the rules concerning meat-related terms should become applicable 12 months after the Regulation enters into force to give stakeholders adequate time to adapt.

However, the European Vegetarian Union (EVU) points out that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) affirmed that existing legislation adequately safeguards consumer protection and ensures transparency in the market, which the EC has agreed to on “several occasions.” 

“We are surprised to see the Commission change its views and priorities in such an unexpected manner,” the EVU states. “With all the real issues currently faced by European agriculture, there are surely more important policies to focus on.”

Defining “meat-related” terms

The EC’s proposal annex includes 29 terms that can only be used for “meat” and “meat product.” It then defines meat exclusively as “the edible parts of an animal.” 

The proposals claim to protect cultural significance, despite public support for plant-based meat names.Moreover, the annex says that “meat products” are products made exclusively from meat, and only allows for the addition of substances essential to the manufacturing process if these substances are not intended to replace, fully or partially, any component of the meat itself.

The terms to be banned are: meat, veal, pork, poultry, chicken, turkey, duck, goose, lamb, mutton, ovine, goat, drumstick, tenderloin, sirloin, flank, loin, ribs, shoulder, shank, chop, wing, breast, thigh, brisket, ribeye, T-bone, rump, and bacon.

According to the EVU, the move follows a series of failed attempts at the EU and national levels. In 2020, the European Parliament rejected a similar proposal, and the ECJ later struck down a French government ban on comparable grounds, citing conflicts with EU law.

Current EU rules allow plant-based products to use meat-related terms if the product is clearly labelled as meat-free. The EVU states that critics argue the new proposal undermines that principle and ignores consumer understanding. 

“We have abundant data from several EU countries showing that consumers are not confused by the use of these terms,” says Rafael Pinto, senior policy manager at the EVU. “This proposal has nothing to do with consumer protection and transparency.”

“Artificially restricting the use of meat terms would be a waste of public resources and an undue restriction of European entrepreneurship and innovation.”

Clearing up confusion?

The EVU also highlights that a 2020 survey by the European Consumer Organisation found that up to 80% of consumers believe plant-based products should be allowed to use traditional meat terms, provided the plant-based nature is made clear.

While the Commission’s proposal excludes terms like “burger,” “sausage,” and “steak,” which were central to past disputes, a parallel initiative from French Member of the European Parliament Céline Imart , expected to go to a vote later this year, seeks to include them in a more expansive restriction.

For food manufacturers and ingredient suppliers, the latest regulatory push could have significant implications for marketing, packaging, and product development strategies across the EU’s growing plant-based sector. 

“Europe cannot set itself the priority to reduce bureaucracy, red tape, and increase competitiveness on Mondays and Tuesdays, and then come up with completely unnecessary proposals on Wednesdays and Thursdays,” Pinto says. 

“We cannot set food security and climate change as priorities and then hinder the development of key solutions. We cannot call for innovation in agriculture and new revenues for farmers, and restrict important opportunities in the plant-based sector. This proposal goes completely against the agenda of the current EC, and the priorities of European citizens.”

“We call on the College of Commissioners and President Ursula von der Leyen to step up and abandon this nonsense,” he concludes.