The European Commission has put forward a new proposal to restrict the use of certain meat-related words for labelling and marketing plant-based meat alternatives.

The proposal states that ‘meat’ means ‘exclusively the edible parts of an animal,’ and puts forward a list of 29 words that should be ‘reserved for products derived exclusively from meat at all stages of marketing’.

These include specific species-related names like ‘chicken,’ ‘beef,’ ‘pork’ and ‘lamb,’ as well as descriptive words such as ‘chop,’ ‘wing,’ ‘drumstick’ and ‘ribs’.

It claims that this is intended to help consumers make informed decisions and enhance transparency in the market with regards to food composition and nutritional content.

The proposal states: “The Union livestock sector is particularly vulnerable to various shocks and global competition and it is required to meet high production standards that are not always rewarded by the market”.

“In this context, it is necessary to acknowledge the natural composition of meat and meat products, in the interest of both Union producers and consumers. Meat-related terms often carry cultural and historical significance.”

This latest proposal comes against a backdrop of increasing scrutiny over plant-based product labelling, with several countries in Europe attempting to put stricter legislation in place restricting the use of meat and dairy-related terms on plant-based products over the last few years.

In May, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland ruled that the names of animal species, such as ‘chicken,’ could not be used to label plant-based alternative products in the country – though generic words like ‘steak’ and ‘fillet’ were allowed, as they are not tied to a specific animal.

This followed the annullment of two separate decrees in January by France’s Council of State, which would have seen businesses face fines of up to €7,500 for using meat-related names to label plant-based products sold exclusively in the country.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) was consulted by the Council of State with regards to the legality of the proposed ban, with the ECJ stating that EU law already provides sufficient regulations to protect consumers, and that the additional rules proposed in the decree could not be permitted in any member state.

The European Vegetarian Union (EVU) commented on the latest proposal: “The ECJ stated that current legislation is sufficient to ensure consumer protection and transparency. This has also been stated by the European Commission on several occasions.”

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

According to a 2020 study by the European Consumer Organisation, only one in five (20%) of consumers think the use of ‘meaty’ names should not be allowed on vegetarian and vegan products, with the use of such terms shown to offer useful guidance to consumers on how to integrate these products into a meal – provided they are clearly labelled as vegetarian/vegan and not misled with regards to nutritional quality.

Jasmijn de Boo, global CEO at ProVeg International, described the proposal as a "waste of the European Commission’s valuable time and resources."

She added: "The European Commission and individual governments should focus, instead, on actively promoting climate-friendly, plant-based food to consumers. In particular, comprehensive Action Plans for Plant-Based Foods, as pioneered by Denmark, should be developed and implemented in other EU member states and at EU level to help create a future food system that is healthy, tasty and sustainable.”

Rafael Pinto, senior policy manager at the EVU, said that “abundant data” from several EU countries shows consumers are not confused due to use of such terms, and “are not buying plant-based products by accident”.

“This proposal has nothing to do with consumer protection and transparency,” he continued. “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.”

He highlighted that the proposal goes “completely against the agenda of the European Commission and the priorities of European citizens,” with the Commission having committed to developing a protein diversification plan earlier in the year to support the growing role of plant-based foods.

“We cannot set food security and climate change as priorities and then hinder the development of key solutions,” Pinto said. “We cannot call for innovation in agriculture and new revenues for farmers, and restrict important opportunities in the plant-based sector… We call on the college of Commissioners and President Ursula von der Leyen to step up and abandon this non-sense.”