A new legislative proposal by the European Commission (‘EC’) aims to reserve terms like ‘bacon’, ‘ribs’, and ‘chicken’ exclusively for animal products, igniting a fierce debate between traditional productions and the booming plant-based industry.

Background

In recent years, the market for plant‑based foods mimicking the look, texture, and names of traditional meat products has exploded. From ‘veggie burgers’ to tofu sausages and ‘vegan chicken’, more consumers are choosing these alternatives for ethical, health, and environmental reasons. At the same time, livestock farmers (subject to significant regulatory burdens and with often very small profit margins) have lobbied national governments and the European Union (‘EU’) to protect typical meat designations, arguing that terms such as ‘steak’, ‘wing’ or ‘bacon’ should be reserved exclusively for animal products.

The precedent: the protection of milk and dairy product designations in the EU

The idea of protecting certain traditional food designations is not new. The EU’s Common Market Organisation Regulation (Reg. (EU) No 1308/2013) defines ‘milk’, ‘butter’, ‘cheese’, ‘yogurt’ and similar terms as legal names reserved for products derived from mammalian milk.

This protection was further clarified and crystallized by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) in its landmark 2017 TofuTown ruling (C‑422/16, EU:C:2017:458), in which the Court held that plant-based products may not bear these dairy designations in labeling and marketing, even if accompanied by an indication of the source of the raw material, such as ‘soy milk’, or qualifiers such as ‘plant-based’ or ‘vegan’, because these are legal names reserved exclusively and without exception for animal products.

National efforts and legal hurdles in the protection of “meaty” names

Inspired by the dairy example, several Member States previously introduced national legislation to offer protection to meat designations, at least for domestically produced products.

France was the first to introduce national legislation prohibiting the use of customary meat product names such as ‘steak’ and ‘tenderloin’ (but not ‘hamburger’) to designate foods containing plant proteins (Décret No. 2022-947 of June 29, 2022, later replaced by Décret No. 2024-144 of February 26, 2024).

These provisions were successfully challenged before the CJEU (Protéines France, C-438/23, EU:C:2024:826), which ruled that the EU’s harmonized food labeling rules on customary and descriptive names for foodstuffs (i.e., Reg. (EU) No 1169/2011) preclude a member state from adopting national measures regulating or prohibiting the use of terms from the butchery, delicatessen, and fish sectors to describe, market, or promote foods containing plant protein instead of protein of animal origin, unless national legislation identifies such terms as ‘legal names’ (and, in doing so, provides a specific description). After this ruling, France’s highest administrative court (Conseil d’État) annulled the 2024 decree, leaving France with no more national bans (Décision n° 492839 of 28 January 2025 FR:CECHR:2025:492839.20250128).

Italy followed suit in late 2023 by adopting a law (Legge 1 dicembre 2023, n. 172) banning customary meat product names for plant-based products (the same law prohibits also the production and placing on the Italian market of cell-based meat). This legislation, however, is considered by many experts to be legally vulnerable because it was enacted without fully complying with Directive 2015/1535’s ‘TRIS procedure’. This process requires member states to notify the European Commission of new technical regulations concerning agricultural and industrial products and information society services prior to their adoption. The notification triggers a 3-month period during which the technical rule cannot be adopted by the member state in question (‘standstill period’). Since the Italian law did not respect this standstill period, it could be disapplied by domestic courts (at least, this is the majority opinion among experts).

Outside the EU, it is worth noting that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, in its 2 May 2025 ruling (2C_26/2023, see the press release), stated that food products destined to consumers made exclusively with vegetable proteins (i.e., those usually defined as ‘plant-based meat’) cannot be designated by names of animal species, even if these are accompanied by an indication specifying the vegetable origin of the product, such as ‘planted chicken’, ‘chicken-like’, ‘pork-like’, ‘vegan pork’ or ‘vegan chicken’.

In the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal in London has denied Oatly’s “Post Milk Generation” trademark used on oat products on the grounds that it violates the protected use of dairy terms; the case is now referred to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC/2025/0004).

The 2025 EC proposal: a new battleground

The pressure from stakeholders has culminated in the new proposed reform of the CMO Regulation. In particular, the European Commission’s initiative would protect 29 meat-related terms, such as ‘chicken’, ‘ribs’, ‘wing’ and ‘bacon’ (new Part Ia in Annex VII to the CMO Regulation). If approved, these designations may be used in labeling and marketing only for products derived exclusively from meat.

Interestingly, this is not the first attempt. A similar amendment was rejected by the European Parliament in 2020 (Amendment 165). However, the current proposal is more nuanced than its predecessor. The failed 2020 version sought a broad, general ban that included also terms like ‘steak’, ‘sausage’, and ‘burger’. The 2025 proposal, on the other hand, leaves these highly popular terms unprotected, meaning we are likely to continue seeing ‘veggie-burgers’ and ‘plant-based sausages’ on our shelves.

The rationale: consumer protection or protectionism?

According to the proposal’s report, the ban serves two purposes. First, it reflects the political intention of the European Commission to support the EU’s livestock sector, which is described as “an essential part of the Union’s agriculture” subject to high standards that are “not always rewarded by the market”.

Second, it claims to improve the transparency of food information for the benefit of consumers. The argument is that meat-related terms have cultural and historical significance, and their protection would ensure that the interests of consumers are well safeguarded so that they can make well-informed choices.

This point, however, is highly contentious. The CJEU has consistently defined the benchmark consumer as “reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.” (ex multis, Viiniverla, C-75/15, EU:C:2016:35).

It is therefore debatable whether such a consumer would genuinely be confused by a product clearly labelled as ‘vegan’ or ‘veggie’, especially when the packaging and placement in stores signal its plant-based origin. Critics argue that this is less about preventing confusion and more about shielding the traditional meat industry from competition (as the current protection for dairy terms clearly is).

On the other hand, a counterargument might be: why call something ‘chicken’ if it contains no meat? Couldn’t plant-based chicken alternatives invent new names? Why use a customary name, if not to leverage its recognisability to drive sales, eroding possible market share from the traditional industry that faces very stringent regulations and slim margins? Other factors may also play a role, such as the protein quality of a meat-based product compared to a plant-based substitute using the same designation, and it can be argued that consumers may be misled into thinking that a meat-based chicken and a plant-based chicken are nutritionally equal.

As this proposal makes its way through the EU’s legislative process, it will undoubtedly trigger a heated debate, pitting the interests of a deeply rooted agricultural heritage against the disruptive innovation of the future of food.

.

*Luca Galizia is an Italian-qualified lawyer with 15 years of professional experience, including over 8 years in food, ‘life sciences’ and packaging law, regulatory affairs and compliance of such products and related trade issues. Founder of Lexfood.it, he currently works at the law firm Keller and Heckman in Brussels, with previous roles in both private and in-house practice.

Read Livestock farming and the green agenda: time for a new balance>>>