Where the provisions do not specify a circumstantial name for a product, the associate State may not prohibit the usage of terms traditionally associated with zoonotic products for the labelling of products containing vegetable protein.
The Court of Justice of the EU has answered the questions referred by the French court in the dispute between Beyond Meat Inc. – a maker of products based on vegetable protein, a European vegetarian union and a French vegetarian association that advance vegetarianism and a French minister. The subject substance of the dispute was a decree issued by the French government. The applicants requested the annulment of that decree, indicating that it infringes a number of provisions of Regulation No 1169/2011, in peculiar by prohibiting the usage of processed products containing plant protein, specified as ‘cotlet’ or ‘bottle’ without adding supplementary information, e.g. ‘plants/plants’ or ‘soy/soy’ or even specified information.
The Court pointed out that if a product has a regulated name, consumers should be certain that it meets certain criteria. However, if the country has not adopted specified a name, it may not prohibit producers from utilizing any common or descriptive name for their plant products. However, if advertising or the way specified products are sold misleads the consumer, national authorities may intervene. The food business operator is liable for the information on a peculiar foodstuff, i.e. ensuring the reliability of the information on it.
The Court besides added that the harmonisation provided for in peculiar EU law is an obstacle to the adoption by the State of a national provision which would let the setting of its own limits on the content of vegetable protein. They would find whether names consisting of concepts derived from the meat and meat manufacture can be utilized for the intent of describing, placing on the marketplace or promoting foodstuffs containing vegetable protein.
For operators active in the plant-based meat substitutes, this means that the usage of meat associated names is not prohibited unless their usage is misleading or provisions have been laid down to guarantee that the name can only be utilized for a peculiar composition (e.g. in Spain we will find a definition of ‘mature pine’).
Judgment of the Court in Case C-438/23.
