In recent years, plant-based diets have seen growing adoption among the population, leading to a significant increase in demand for plant-based products. In response to this trend, companies in the sector have begun labelling their products with terms commonly associated with animal-derived foods, such as “cold cuts”, “sausage” or “burger”, while clearly indicating on the label the plant-based nature of the product. This strategy has been adopted to make plant-based products more familiar and accessible to consumers, thereby facilitating their integration into everyday eating habits.
This practice is known as “meat sounding“, a term that refers specifically to the use of denominations commonly associated with meat-based products to describe foods containing exclusively plant-derived proteins.
Following the rise of this phenomenon, however, meat sounding has become the subject of heated debate in several European countries, some of which have chosen to introduce regulations aimed at banning it, on the grounds that it could mislead consumers. The first country to act in this regard was France, which through Decree No. 947 of 29 June 2022 banned «the use of terminology specific to sectors traditionally associated with meat and fish to refer to products not belonging to the animal kingdom». Following the French example, Italy also introduced a similar ban with the enactment of Law No. 172 of 1 December 2023. In Article 3, the Italian legislator prohibited the use of terminology typically associated with meat to describe processed products containing exclusively plant proteins, with the stated aim of protecting the national livestock heritage and ensuring accurate consumer information.
Although the French decree and the Italian law represent the first specific measures aimed at banning the use of meat-related terms to describe plant-based products, the prohibition on using denominations traditionally associated with animal-derived foods for plant-based products is not entirely new. In 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union had already ruled on an analogous matter, concerning, however, the dairy sector. The case had originated before a German regional court, following a dispute between an association operating in the field of combating unfair competition and the company TofuTown, which produces and distributes plant-based products using denominations such as “vegan cheese”. The Court, in its ruling, held that it was not lawful to use the denomination “milk” and the denominations that Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 reserves exclusively for dairy products to designate a purely plant-based product, even where such denominations are accompanied by explanatory indications specifying the plant origin of the product in question. The legal basis for this decision was found in Article 78(2) of the Regulation, which, read in conjunction with Annex VII, establishes that denominations such as “butter”, “cheese” or “yogurt” may be used exclusively for products derived from milk, defined as «the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings, without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom».
Seven years after the TofuTown ruling, the Court of Justice was once again called upon to consider whether terms typically associated with animal products may be used to refer to plant-based foods, this time with specific reference to the phenomenon of meat sounding.
It is therefore necessary to turn our attention back to the French decree mentioned above. Following its enactment, three separate annulment proceedings were brought before the Conseil d’État (French Council of State) by the association ProtĂ©ines France, the European Vegetarian Union together with the Association VĂ©gĂ©tarienne de France, and the company Beyond Meat. In response, the French Council of State deemed it appropriate to refer to the Court of Justice several questions concerning the phenomenon of meat sounding and the related margin of discretion available to Member States in this area. Pending a response from the Court, the French judge also decided to suspend the decree in question.
On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice finally made its decision public in the long-awaited ruling, reaching conclusions different from those in the TofuTown case.
Let us look at what the ruling established.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in Case C-438/23, highlights the complex interplay between national regulations and European law in the food sector. At the centre of the dispute is the 2022 French decree (subsequently amended and repealed by Decree 2024-144) which, as mentioned, banned in France the use of animal-derived denominations for plant-based foods.
Several associations, including the Union VĂ©gĂ©tarienne EuropĂ©enne and the company Beyond Meat, challenged the decree before the French Conseil d’État, arguing that it violated EU Regulation No. 1169/2011. According to the applicants, European legislation already establishes clear criteria on labelling, which allow the use of recognisable terms provided they are not misleading, thus rendering local regulatory interventions unjustified.
CJEU Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta, on 5 September 2024, offered a key interpretation of the EU Regulation, maintaining that while leaving Member States some discretion on certain aspects, the Regulation grants producers freedom in naming their products, provided they do not mislead the consumer.
In particular, Advocate General Ćapeta specified that Member States may establish legal denominations for certain foods provided that such denominations are not already harmonised at European level, and that Article 7 of the Regulation prohibits misleading denominations but leaves operators free to choose common terms, unless a specific legal denomination exists; furthermore, French rules may only be applied to products manufactured in France, thus not restricting imports and exports. Therefore, the decree would not represent an obstacle to the free movement of goods.
On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice issued a ruling that reinforces the concept of regulatory harmonisation at European level. The Court held that EU harmonisation is binding, since Articles 7 and 17 of EU Regulation 1169/2011 expressly harmonise labelling rules, prohibiting Member States from introducing additional national measures that restrict the use of animal-derived denominations for plant-based foods, provided the labelling is not misleading.
France may not, therefore, prevent the use of common denominations, such as “steak” or “sausage”, for products based on plant proteins, provided that the plant composition of the product is clearly indicated.
Furthermore, the Court confirmed that national administrative sanctions remain valid if proportionate and effective, but rejected the possibility for a Member State to establish plant protein thresholds below which the use of animal denominations is permitted. Such a practice would violate European harmonisation, creating barriers to the free movement of goods.
With this decision, the CJEU reinforces the principle that plant-based products may use terms commonly associated with animal products, in line with EU labelling rules, while at the same time promoting clear information for consumers. This important precedent supports the free market and encourages an increasingly coherent European regulatory framework in harmony with the needs of the food sector.
Furthermore, the decision facilitates the path towards greater acceptance of plant-based products, promoting environmental sustainability within the framework of the “Farm to Fork” strategy.
Following this ruling, the bans provided for by Italian Law No. 172/2023, which we discussed here, collapse entirely, as do the demagogic prejudices that led to its approval, in line with the changes in society and consumption patterns.
