/>iAs this blog has previously covered, various states have passed laws prohibiting plant-based products from being labeled like traditional meat products. A recent Oklahoma law bans using terms like beef, chicken, or bacon to describe "cultivated-protein food products"—foods not made from traditional farm animals—unless a qualifier is included to clarify the product's non-animal origin. The new Oklahoma law, which takes effect on November 1, 2025, expressly applies to cell-cultured meats, insect-based meat products, and plant-based meat products.
Earlier this year, the FDA issued draft guidance for Labeling of Plant-Based Alternatives to Animal-Derived Foods. This draft guidance is not compulsory but provides recommendations to manufacturers to help ensure that their products do not mislead consumers. The FDA recommendations apply to plant-based versions of meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy (except for plant-based milks). The FDA guidance does not prohibit manufacturers from using the common names of animal-based products, such as meat, jerky or cheese. However, the labels cannot indicate that animal products are included. Rather, the label should explain to consumers the specific plant source(s) used to create the product. The FDA cited 21 CFR 102.5(a) which requires manufacturers to “accurately identify or describe, in as simple and direct terms as possible, the basic nature of the food or its characterizing properties or ingredients.”
Currently, plant-based meats often state that they are “meatless,” “plant-based,” or “vegetarian” but do not further specify the identity of the plant source used to create the food. Under the draft FDA guidance, the labels of these products should inform consumers – as part of the label and not just in the ingredient list – of the primary ingredient used to create the food. As an example, the FDA suggested “chickpea and lentil-based fish sticks.”
The FDA also provided guidance about how the label should look, including the prominence and type size of the language identifying the plant origin of the food. Specifically, the FDA cited 21 CFR 101.3(d) which states:
This statement of identity shall be presented in bold type on the principal display panel, shall be in a size reasonably related to the most prominent printed matter on such panel, and shall be in lines generally parallel to the base on which the package rests as it is designed to be displayed.
The guidance noted, “[g]enerally, we consider a prominent print or type for the statement of identify to be at least 1/2 the size of the largest print on the label.” Consumers should be able to easily discern on the front of the label that, not only is the product not animal-based, but also the specific plant composition of the product.
The U.S. is not the only country to specify labeling requirements for nontraditional meat products. Recently, the Swiss Supreme Court ruled that plant-based meats, while able to use terms such as filet or steak, could not label their products as “chicken,” “beef,” etc. It was noted that Swiss law and European Union law “define[d] ‘chicken’ as poultry or meat. Since there is no such thing as ‘plant-based chicken’, the use of the term ‘chicken’ for plant-based meat substitutes is inadmissible.”
As entrepreneurs race to provide an ever increasing array of protein options for the public, regulations applicable to those products continue to evolve. Manufacturers will need to remain vigilant to navigate the ever increasing regulatory maze of regulatory and labeling requirements.
