On Friday, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a pivotal ruling stating that France’s proposed ban on meat alternatives using ‘meaty’ names cannot be enforced. This decision underscores the complexities within the food and drink regulations surrounding terminology.
Key to this outcome is the absence of legal definitions for many descriptors associated with meat products, such as ‘steak.’ As a result, the case opposing the ban, initiated by organizations including the European Vegetarian Union, Association Protéines France, and US company Beyond Meat, will be referred back to France’s Council of State (Conseil d’État) for final adjudication.
What prompted the original ban on meaty names?
In February, France declared a ban on ‘meaty’ terminology for plant-based offerings. This ruling prohibited plant-based bacon from being labeled as ‘bacon,’ plant-based steak from being called ‘steak,’ and similarly mandated that plant-based sausage adopt a different name for ‘sausage.’ This prohibition also encompassed various meat alternatives, including those derived from mycoprotein.
The rationale behind the ban stemmed from assertions that such nomenclature could mislead consumers, combined with pushback from the agricultural sector. However, shortly after the ban was introduced, it was suspended. France’s Conseil d’État recognized the potential challenges that domestic plant-based manufacturers faced in adjusting their marketing and packaging within the imposed timeline.
Why did the ECJ block the ban?
The ECJ’s decision to block the ban is based on the premise that terms cannot be prohibited unless they possess legal definitions. Since terms like ‘steak’ and ‘sausage’ lack established legal definitions, France cannot enforce such a ban. In contrast, the definition of ‘meat’ is clear and recognized as ‘edible parts of animals,’ according to Katia Merten-Lentz, partner at Food Law Science and Partners.
Moreover, the court affirmed that existing EU regulations sufficiently protect consumers, deeming the ban unnecessary. “This is an important decision for consumer protection and for the European Economy,” remarked Rafael Pinto, EU policy manager for the European Vegetarian Union. He added, “Given the increasing number of Europeans buying plant-based alternatives, for health, environmental, or ethical reasons, the use of traditional names actually informs [consumers] on what the product tastes like and how to prepare it. Data also supports that consumers are making an intentional choice when opting for these products. They are not buying them by mistake.”
Pinto indicated that this ruling will have implications for all EU member states. “For countries considering similar proposed bans, they will now need to first establish legal definitions for terms such as burger, sausage, or steak.”
Merten-Lentz further commented on the judgment, stating, “This judgment provides a ‘narrow escape’ to the Member States by asserting that legal names could be established. Meanwhile, it sends a strong warning that arbitrary bans on specific terms cannot be imposed without proper legal grounding.” While it remains a general legal opinion that requires concrete implementation by the French Conseil d’État, it reflects the Court’s stance.
FoodNavigator has sought insights from the Fédération nationale des syndicats d’exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), the French farmers’ union, regarding this matter.
What challenges exist in developing legal definitions?
If France decides to formulate legal definitions for such terms, it may encounter harmonization challenges within the single market. For instance, the definition of ‘bacon’ might vary significantly between Germany and France. These linguistic and cultural disparities among member states could complicate the implementation of unified definitions.
