France Bid to Ban Meat Names for Plant Based Food

202-434-4100

Trusts & Estates Attorney / Estate Planning Lawyer
On Balance Search Consultants

Chief Operating Officer / Business Manager
On Balance Search Consultants

Litigation Paralegal
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Commercial Real Estate Transactional Attorney / Real Estate Lawyer
On Balance Search Consultants

Trusts & Estates Partner / Senior Attorney
On Balance Search Consultants

Legal Support Specialist
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Litigation Legal Support Specialist
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

France Reintroduces Bid to Ban Meat Names for Plant-Based Food

Thursday, September 7, 2023

Print Mail Download info_icon_img

On September 4, 2023, France released revised proposals banning the use of meat names for plant-based food made in the country in order to avoid “misleading claims” of some meat alternatives. In its press release, France’s Ministry of Agriculture and Food Sovereignty stated that, “It is an issue of transparency and fairness which responds to a legitimate expectation of consumers and producers.”
The agency plans to ban the use of 21 meat terms, including “steak,” “ham,” and “spare ribs,” from labels on all plant-based food products. Producers will be completely prohibited from using words associated with particular animal parts (i.e., rump, flank, loin, etc.) when marketing or describing processed products containing plant proteins. A second list of 120 terms, including “bacon,” pastrami,” and “sausage” will be allowed by French authorities “to describe foodstuffs of animal origin which may contain plant proteins,” but only if the plant protein levels do not exceed a specified threshold, ranging between 0.5% and 6%. “Burger” does not appear on the list of banned words. If approved by the European Commission, producers will have three months to comply with the decree.
Previously, in June 2022, France was the first European Union member state to attempt to impose such restrictions. However, the measure was suspended by the country’s highest administrative court a month later, which argued that it was too vague and the timing too short.