The report Seizing the Economic Opportunity of Alternative Proteins in Europe clearly quantifies the economic scope of the transition towards alternative proteins (plant-based, fermentation-derived and cultivated).
According to the researchers who compiled this report, in a scenario where there was only moderate political support, the sector could generate around €111 billion per year in added value by 2040 and create over 414,000 skilled jobs.
The European market for protein ingredients alone (legumes, soy, cereals, oilseeds) would reach €53 billion, helping to reduce the European Union’s dependence on soy imports, currently standing at around 19 million tonnes per year. Indeed, according to Eurostat – Comext data (commercial year 2025-26, July-September period) the largest source of soy imports comes from Brazil, accounting for approximately 58% of soybean imports.
Alongside these encouraging economic prospects, the protein transition raises significant legal questions. A first issue concerns market access, as many innovative proteins fall under the category of novel foods and are therefore subject to prior authorisation procedures.
These procedures are essential to ensure food safety, but they also affect time-to-market and the competitiveness of European companies, creating difficulties in this type of market.
The law is therefore called upon to strike a balance between the protection of health and the promotion of innovation, preventing regulatory uncertainty from becoming a brake on industrial development.
A second aspect concerns agriculture and production supply chains.
The report highlights, in fact, how the conversion towards crops destined for direct human consumption could generate up to €5 billion per year in additional income for farmers, thanks to prices 15–20% higher than feed crops.
A third front, more recent and politically sensitive, concerns the regulation of commercial communications.
This is the context for the case of Amsterdam, which approved a ban in 2025 on advertising meat and fossil fuel-related products in public spaces under municipal jurisdiction, coming into force on 1 May 2026, thus becoming the first capital city in the world to adopt a measure of this kind. The measure applies to billboards, bus stops and digital screens under municipal authority, excluding shops and private property. The vote passed with 27 councillors in favour out of 45. From a legal standpoint, the measure raises significant questions: compatibility with economic freedom, compliance with existing advertising contracts and the definition of the categories of prohibited products. It is no coincidence that the councillor for public spaces highlighted the risk of litigation, while a precedent from the Hague court (2025) had already recognised the legitimacy of a similar ban.
The decision is part of a path already taken by other Dutch cities, including Haarlem (the first in the world in 2022), The Hague, Utrecht, Delft and Nijmegen, which have introduced similar regulations limiting the promotion of products considered to have a high climate impact in urban advertising spaces.
The city of The Hague has adopted a particularly incisive approach to limiting the promotion of high climate-impact products, focusing primarily on the ban on fossil fuel advertising (including flights and petrol-powered cars) in public spaces, a measure also upheld following litigation with the advertising sector. While not being the first city to have introduced restrictions on meat advertising, this intervention is part of the broader Dutch regulatory context aimed at reducing the promotion of goods with a high environmental footprint.
Practical questions also remain open: how to classify hybrid products or “transitional” ones (for example, burgers made up of 50% beef and 50% pea protein, or sausages containing animal fat and fermentation-derived proteins)?
Where does the boundary lie between meat, alternatives and blends — for example between a “meat burger” with added plant proteins, a “vegetable burger with natural meat flavouring” and a product obtained from cultivated cells mixed with conventional meat?
From this perspective, the protein transition is not merely a technological change, but a true test case for contemporary law.
The rules on novel foods, agricultural policies and even advertising choices are not limited to ensuring food safety or fair market competition, but rather concretely contribute to shaping the speed and direction of innovation.
Regulations affect the time it takes for products to enter the market, the location of investments and the ability of European companies to compete globally.
In light of the economic data from the Systemiq report and the tensions that have emerged in the Amsterdam case, it is clear that the protein transition is not only about what we will eat, but also about the role of institutions in guiding change.
The law is called upon to strike a delicate balance, protecting health while guaranteeing economic freedoms without becoming an obstacle to innovation. What is at stake is not only the authorisation of new products but, above all, the definition of the food and economic model that Europe intends to promote in the coming decades.
