EU “meaty” label debate looms with plant-based brands in regulatory limbo – foodingredientsfirst.com

Report on European Union Terminology Regulations for Plant-Based Foods and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

Introduction and Legislative Context

A significant legislative debate is underway within the European Union concerning the nomenclature of plant-based food products. The central issue is whether alternatives to meat may use established meat-related terms such as “burger” or “sausage.” This has created a divide between livestock industry advocates, who argue such terms are misleading and infringe on cultural heritage, and proponents of the plant-based sector, who contend the terminology aids consumer understanding and supports a transition toward more sustainable food systems, directly impacting several UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The legislative process has reached a critical juncture, creating uncertainty for the food industry. The key stages are as follows:

1. The European Parliament voted in favor of restricting meat-related terminology for plant-based products.
2. The measure has now advanced to trilogue negotiations, involving the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission.
3. A final decision is anticipated, but the timeline for implementation could extend for several years, leaving manufacturers in a state of legal limbo.

This situation is further complicated by a 2024 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling, which determined that existing legislation is sufficient to protect consumers from misleading labeling, questioning the legal necessity of new restrictions.

Stakeholder Positions and Market Dynamics

Arguments for Terminology Restrictions

Advocates for the restrictions, including the European Livestock Voice and certain political groups, present their case based on several key principles:

• Consumer Clarity: They argue that terms like “steak” or “sausage” have dictionary definitions tied to animal products and that using them for plant-based items causes confusion.
• Nutritional Integrity: Concerns are raised that consumers may mistakenly assume plant-based products have the same nutritional profile as their meat counterparts, potentially affecting nutrient intake.
• Cultural and Economic Protection: The measure is framed as a way to protect the value and reputation of traditional animal products, thereby supporting the craftsmanship of European farmers and butchers.

Arguments Against Terminology Restrictions

Opponents, including the European Vegetarian Union and The European Alliance for Plant-based Foods, argue that the restrictions would be detrimental to consumers, industry, and broader EU goals:

• Consumer Understanding: They maintain that terms like “plant-based burger” are not confusing but rather help consumers understand how to use and integrate these products into their diets.
• Economic Disadvantage: The ban would place an unjustified burden on plant-based businesses, potentially stifling innovation and harming European farmers who cultivate crops like soy and peas for this sector.
• Contradiction with Policy Goals: The measure is seen as running counter to EU strategies promoting sustainable and healthy diets.

Analysis of Alignment with UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 13 (Climate Action)

The debate is intrinsically linked to the promotion of sustainable food systems. A transition to plant-based diets is widely recognized as a critical strategy for achieving SDG 12 and SDG 13. Livestock agriculture is a primary driver of greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging consumption of plant-based alternatives is essential for climate mitigation. The proposed labeling restrictions could create a significant barrier to consumer adoption of these more sustainable products, thereby hindering progress toward climate and responsible consumption targets.

SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

The proposed regulations conflict with public health objectives outlined in SDG 3. Health organizations, such as PAN International, emphasize that plant-based alternatives help consumers reduce their intake of processed meats, which are linked to non-communicable diseases like colorectal cancer. By making these alternatives harder to market and identify, the restrictions represent an “unnecessary barrier” to policy actions aimed at improving the health of both people and the planet.

SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 8 (Decent Work), and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation)

The economic and industrial implications of the measure directly affect several SDGs:

• SDG 2 & SDG 9: The plant-based food industry is a hub of innovation, contributing to a more resilient and diverse food supply that supports food security. Europe is the world’s largest market for these products, with projections indicating growth from US$108 billion in 2025 to nearly US$590 billion by 2035. Stifling this innovation could impede progress.
• SDG 8: This rapidly growing sector is a source of job creation and economic growth. The proposed restrictions could disproportionately harm small and medium-sized enterprises, limiting their ability to compete and contribute to a robust European economy. The policy also creates tension within the agricultural sector, potentially undermining farmers who are diversifying into plant-based ingredients.

Conclusion and Strategic Outlook

The ongoing debate over plant-based food terminology highlights a fundamental conflict between the protection of traditional industries and the promotion of innovative, sustainable food systems aligned with the UN SDGs. While proponents frame the issue as one of consumer protection, opponents argue it is a protectionist measure that contradicts the EU’s own health and sustainability strategies.

Food manufacturers face a difficult strategic choice between investing in costly rebranding or waiting for a final legislative outcome. The trilogue negotiations will determine the final direction of the policy, with significant pressure from coalitions on both sides of the issue. Regardless of the outcome, the decision will have profound implications for the food industry’s capacity to innovate and contribute effectively to achieving global health, climate, and economic sustainability goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article connects the rise of plant-based foods to public health outcomes. It highlights the argument that these alternatives can help reduce the consumption of processed meats, which are linked to serious health issues. Dr. Roberta Alessandrini is quoted stating that “fortified plant-based alternatives offer a tangible opportunity to help people reduce their consumption of processed meat, which is strongly linked to colorectal cancer and other major diseases,” directly linking the food debate to health and well-being.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The economic implications of the plant-based food industry are a central theme. The article discusses market growth, job creation, and competition within the European food sector. It notes that “plant-based foods are among Europe’s fastest-growing markets, driving innovation, creating jobs and contributing to a competitive European food sector.” This addresses the goal of promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

  The debate over labeling directly impacts industry innovation. The article explores how regulatory restrictions could either protect traditional industries or stifle innovation in the burgeoning plant-based sector. Proponents of plant-based foods argue that restrictions would “risk hindering consumers’ trust and stifling food innovation,” which is a core concern of SDG 9.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  This goal is at the heart of the article’s conflict. The debate over terminology like “plant-based burger” is fundamentally about ensuring consumers have clear information to make sustainable consumption choices. Proponents argue the terms “help shoppers understand products,” while opponents claim they are “misleading.” The article also touches on the sustainability of the food system by discussing “sustainable alternatives” and the need for policies that improve the “health of both people and the planet,” aligning with the principles of responsible consumption and production.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being. The article directly supports this target by referencing the role of plant-based alternatives in reducing the consumption of processed meat, which is a known risk factor for non-communicable diseases like “colorectal cancer.”

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.2: Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation. The article identifies the plant-based food sector as a source of economic growth and innovation, stating it is “driving innovation, creating jobs and contributing to a competitive European food sector.”

3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

   • Target 9.5: Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors… encouraging innovation. The article discusses how policy decisions on labeling could impact the industry’s ability to innovate. The warning that restrictions could be “stifling food innovation” directly relates to this target.

4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.8: By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature. The entire debate over labeling—whether terms are “misleading” or “help consumers understand”—is about providing the information necessary for consumers to make informed choices about sustainable food products.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 3 (Target 3.4)

   • Implied Indicator: Reduction in consumption of processed meat. The article suggests that the availability and clear labeling of plant-based alternatives can lead to a decrease in eating processed meats, which would serve as a measure of progress in preventing diet-related non-communicable diseases.

2. For SDG 8 (Target 8.2)

   • Mentioned Indicator: Market size and growth rate of the plant-based food sector. The article provides specific data: “the global sector expected to grow from US$108 billion in 2025 to nearly US$590 billion by 2035.” This quantifies the economic growth and productivity of this innovative sector.
   • Implied Indicator: Number of jobs created in the plant-based food industry. The article mentions the sector is “creating jobs,” implying that tracking employment in this industry is a key indicator of its contribution to economic growth.

3. For SDG 9 (Target 9.5)

   • Implied Indicator: Level of investment in research and development for food innovation. The concern about “stifling food innovation” implies that a key measure of progress would be the continued investment and development of new products in the plant-based sector, which could be hindered by restrictive regulations.

4. For SDG 12 (Target 12.8)

   • Implied Indicator: Consumer comprehension of food labels. The core of the debate is whether consumers are confused by terms like “plant-based sausage.” Measuring consumer understanding and the clarity of product information would be a direct indicator of progress towards this target. The existence of the “No Confusion Coalition” further highlights this as a central metric.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foodingredientsfirst.com