Requirements to the name on packaging
In short, food products must 1) bear a name, which name 2) must be a legal name or, failing that, a common name or, failing that, a descriptive name, and the name 3) must be accurate, clear and easily understood by consumers and 4) must not mislead consumers, in particular as to the characteristics of the food in question. The latter refers in particular to its nature and composition. And 5) regarding the substitution of naturally occurring components or ingredients, these requirements must be respected when marketing and promoting any food with other components or ingredients. The idea is that deception by incorrect designations is prohibited.
Ban on meat names?
The French government wanted legislative measures prohibiting the regulation of terms such as "steak" or "sausage" for foods made from plant proteins. The European Court of Justice now rules that such a ban is not allowed unless very specific conditions are met.
Requirements from the Food Information Regulation
The aforementioned requirements derive, among other things, from the Food Information Regulation, including Articles 2, 7, 9 and 17. These include consumer information rules that also apply to advertising and the presentation of food.
So these are terms from the butchery, charcuterie and seafood industries. These are now often used to describe foods that contain plant-based proteins rather than animal-based proteins. And they are promoted and advertised in similar terms. All these are also applied to packaging. Sometimes they are also incorporated into a trademark.
The annexes to the Food Information Regulation provide that for food in which an ingredient or component that the consumer expects to be naturally present or normally used has been substituted with another component or ingredient, the label shall clearly indicate the component or ingredient used for total or partial substitution.
However, the Court holds that a blanket ban on meat designations - such as "steak" or "sausage" for products containing vegetable protein - is not permissible unless an exception is provided for in EU law.
Rebuttable presumption
Beyond Meat had brought this case along with the European Vegetarian Union, among others. Beyond Meat argued that the provisions of the Food Information Regulation create a rebuttable presumption. Namely, that if the information provided in accordance with the rules prescribed therein, consumers are adequately protected, i.e., even in the case of complete substitution of the only component or ingredient they can expect to find in a foodstuff designated by a common name or a descriptive name containing certain terms.
This may be the case if the packaging legally clear enough because the packaging is clear, for example, if information about the substitution of the component or ingredient appears in close proximity to the name of the food (which is sufficient to protect the consumer from the risk of deception). The Food Information Regulation requires a mandatory list of ingredients that must include the appropriate information.
Conclusion
The French ban on meat designations is thus not straightforward, in order to prevent producers of plant products from being able to use descriptive names for their products. This is relevant to the practice whereby the description, marketing and promotion of foods containing plant proteins will thus continue to be permitted.
This may be different, however, if it can be shown that the consumer is nevertheless misled, for example by the packaging, the offer or the commendation. It may also be different if Member States have adopted a specific legal name for products, which must be used in such cases.
