EU “meaty” label debate looms with plant-based brands in regulatory limbo

Can a plant-based product be called a “burger”? The question has divided Europe’s food industry between livestock advocates, who see meat-related terminology as misleading consumers and appropriating cultural heritage, and plant-based proponents, who argue the terms help shoppers understand products while restrictions serve industry protection rather than consumer clarity.

The European Parliament’s September vote on whether to restrict meat-related names for plant-based products, which passed 355 to 247, has created legal limbo for manufacturers. The measure now enters trilogue negotiations between Parliament, Council, and Commission, with conclusions expected by year-end but enforcement potentially years away. 

Jessica van Leeuwen, EPP Group MEP from the Netherlands’ Farmer-Citizen Movement, who backed the measure, tells Food Ingredients First: “It is important to remember that this is the position of the European Parliament — negotiations in the Council are still ongoing.” 

This process leaves manufacturers facing strategic dilemmas: invest in costly rebranding now, or wait and risk rushed compliance and possible wasted inventory later?

Language ownership

Van Leeuwen frames the issue as a matter of definitional clarity. “If you look up ‘steak,’ ‘sausage,’ or ‘escalope’ in the dictionary, you will find that it is an animal product containing meat. So why would producers of vegetarian food use those names?” she says.

Industry stakeholder campaign group European Livestock Voice extends this reasoning to nutrition and culture. 

“There is a concern that as plant-based products do not have the same nutritional characteristics as animal-source foods, a misleading food label may impact on intake of specific nutrients for populations more at risk of deficiencies,” the organization tells us. 

The group also emphasizes that “protection of traditional and cultural designations has been linked to long-established animal source food production.”

However, Rafael Pinto, senior policy manager at European Vegetarian Union, rejects this entirely. “It is clear that consumers are not confused by a ‘plant-based sausage,’ ‘plant-based burger,’ or ‘plant-based chicken.’ These terms help consumers understand how to cook and enjoy sustainable alternatives,” he says, noting the ban “could also hurt European farmers producing the raw materials of these foods, such as soy, pea, and other crops.”

Parliament’s vote to ban meat terminology for plant-based products enters trilogue negotiations, with enforcement timeline uncertain.The European Court of Justice (ECJ) appeared to settle this question in 2024, ruling that existing legislation adequately protects consumers from misleading labels — a finding that raises questions about whether new restrictions are legally defensible.

Market stakes and agricultural tensions

Europe represents the world’s largest market for plant-based meat alternatives, with the global sector expected to grow from US$108 billion in 2025 to nearly US$590 billion by 2035, according to data from ProVeg International. 

Siska Pottie, secretary general of The European Alliance for Plant-based Foods, notes that “plant-based foods are among Europe’s fastest-growing markets, driving innovation, creating jobs and contributing to a competitive European food sector.”

Yet European Livestock Voice sees this growth as unfair competition, arguing restrictions “protect the reputation and value of animal products, helping maintain consumer trust and product differentiation,” while acknowledging they “would limit some marketing tools, possibly reducing recognition and sales in the short term” for plant-based manufacturers.

This zero-sum framing obscures a more complex agricultural reality. Pinto’s reference to pulse, legume, and specialty crop farmers reveals competing interests within the broader farming sector — the measure ostensibly protecting farmers may actually pit livestock producers against those growing plant-based ingredients. 

Van Leeuwen disputes this, arguing the measure “will ensure the craftsmanship of our farmers and butchers is properly valued.”

Policy contradictions

The restrictions arguably create tension with broader EU strategy. Dr. Roberta Alessandrini, director of the Dietary Guidelines Initiative at PAN International, argues that “fortified plant-based alternatives offer a tangible opportunity to help people reduce their consumption of processed meat, which is strongly linked to colorectal cancer and other major diseases.” 

She calls terminology restrictions “an unnecessary barrier” when “concrete policy actions are needed to improve the health of both people and the planet.”Livestock advocates and plant-based manufacturers remain divided over whether restrictions protect consumers or stifle market innovation.

This issue highlights a paradox in European law: EU sustainability and health strategies encourage dietary shifts toward plant-based foods, while this measure could make such products harder to market and identify.

Anais Bismuth, policy officer at Plant-Based Foods Europe, warns that “restricting meat denominations for plant-based products would put plant-based businesses at a disproportionate and unjustified disadvantage,” arguing “current rules allow for fair competition between meat products and plant-based alternatives.”

Industry calculations, next moves 

Manufacturers face difficult decisions with incomplete information. Rebranding demands packaging redesigns, marketing pivots and consumer re-education — expensive processes that smaller producers may struggle to afford. Pottie warns “additional restrictions would only risk hindering consumers’ trust and stifling food innovation.”

Yet waiting carries its own risks if restrictions pass with short implementation windows.

Van Leeuwen maintains concerns are overblown: “This is not a ban on plant-based food — everybody has the freedom to choose what to eat, but we are definitely happy about clear and factual wording of what food contains.”

The trilogue negotiations will now test whether Parliament’s position survives scrutiny from Council and Commission. Over 400 organizations have mobilized through the No Confusion Coalition to pressure negotiators, while livestock groups push to maintain Parliament’s stance.

Even if agreement emerges, legal challenges appear likely given the 2024 ECJ ruling and the measure’s tension with EU sustainability policy. For food manufacturers, the message is clear: prepare for multiple scenarios. The debate over who owns culinary language — and whether consumer protection or market protection drives policy — remains far from settled.