The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on Friday that France’s ban on meat alternatives having ‘meaty’ names cannot go ahead.
The reasons for this lie in the lack of legal definitions for many of the descriptors for meat products, such as ‘steak’.
The case against the ban, originally brought forward by organisations including the European Vegetarian Union and Association Protéines France, along with US company Beyond Meat, will now be returned to France’s Council of State (Conseil d’État) for a final decision.
Why were meaty names originally banned?
In February this year, France announced that it was banning ‘meaty’ names for its plant-based products. Plant-based bacon could no longer be called ‘bacon,’ plant-based steak was not allowed to be labelled ‘steak’, and plant-based sausage would have to find a different name to ‘sausage’. The ban also extended to other meat alternatives, such as those made from mycoprotein.
The ban came after claims that such names could cause consumer confusion, as well as opposition from the agricultural sector.
Not long after the ban was announced, however, it was suspended. In April, France’s Conseil d’État suspended the ban, acknowledging fears that France’s plant-based manufacturers would struggle to implement the changes to marketing and packaging in the timeframe given.
Why has the ECJ blocked the ban?
The ECJ has blocked the ban because such terms, according to the court, cannot be banned unless they have legal definitions. As terms such as ‘steak’ and ‘sausage’ have no legal definition, France cannot ban them.
This however is not the case with the term ‘meat’ itself, which is defined as ‘edible parts of animals’, according to Katia Merten-Lentz, partner at Food Law Science and Partners.
The court also ruled that current EU laws are sufficient to protect consumers, and that the ban was unnecessary from that perspective.
“This is an important decision for consumer protection and for the European Economy,” Rafael Pinto, EU policy manager for the European Vegetarian Union, told FoodNavigator.
“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.”
The decision, he suggested, will affect all EU member states. “For the countries with similar proposed bans, they would now need to first create legal definitions for denominations such as burger, sausage or steak.”
“This judgment provides a ‘narrow escape’ to the Member States by stating that legal names could be established, meanwhile it sends a strong warning by pointing that arbitrary bans on specific terms cannot be imposed without proper legal grounding,” Merten-Lentz told FoodNavigator.
“Although it is a general legal opinion, (which still needs to be concretely implemented by the French Conseil d’Etat), it does reflect the Court’s stance.”
FoodNavigator contacted the Fédération nationale des syndicats d’exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), the French farmers’ union, for comment.
What are the barriers towards developing legal definitions?
If France were to develop legal definitions for such terms, they may come across harmonisation issues within the single market, according to the European Vegetarian Union. The definition of ‘bacon’ may differ between Germany and France, for example.
Such linguistic and cultural differences between member states may make it difficult for such definitions to be implemented.
