Tofu Can Be a 'Steak': EU Court of Justice Ruling on Use of Meat-Related Names for Plant-Based Foods
In a landmark ruling on consumer protection and food labeling, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in C-438/23 Protéines France and Others v. France, on the 4th of October 2024, clarified the extent to which Member States can regulate the names used for plant-based food products. The judgment addresses whether national laws can prohibit terms traditionally associated with meat—like "steak" or "sausage"—when used to describe foods made from vegetable proteins.
Background of the Case
The case originated in France, where a 2022 decree banned the use of meat-related terms for plant-based products, citing concerns over consumer confusion. This prompted legal challenges from a number of company’s providing vegetable protein-based products and vegetarian advocacy groups. They argued that the French decree violated EU Regulation No 1169/2011, which harmonizes food labelling rules across the EU.
In the meantime, France repealed the original decree and issued a new, similar one in 2024. Nonetheless, the Conseil d’État (France's Council of State) referred questions to the CJEU, asserting that the matter remained relevant and decisive for the dispute.
What Did the Court Say?
1. Harmonized Food Labeling Rules Trump National Bans
The Court ruled that Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 specifically harmonizes the labelling of food products, including rules on legal names, customary names, and descriptive names. Since this regulation already addresses how food information should be presented to consumers, individual Member States cannot impose additional, abstract bans like prohibiting "burger" or "nugget" for plant-based items.
2. Legal vs. Customary vs. Descriptive Names
The CJEU clarified:
• Legal names must be prescribed in EU or national law.
• In the absence of legal names, producers may use customary or descriptive names.
• These names must not mislead consumers, particularly regarding composition or ingredient substitution.
The Court noted that France’s decree did not create a “legal name” but instead banned certain customary/descriptive terms. That, the Court held, is not allowed under EU law.
3. Risk of Consumer Confusion Is Already Covered by EU Rules
The Court emphasized that consumer protection against misleading information is already accounted for under Article 7 of the Regulation. This includes cases where one ingredient is completely substituted for another (e.g., animal protein replaced with plant protein). A blanket national ban on certain names is therefore both unnecessary and incompatible with EU law.
4. Enforcement Still Possible—Within Limits
The Court did leave room for targeted enforcement. If a specific food product is found to mislead consumers—despite compliance with EU labeling rules—national authorities may still pursue penalties. However, they must demonstrate that the standard EU labeling was insufficient in that particular case.
Key Takeaways
• The CJEU reinforced the primacy of EU food labelling law over inconsistent national regulations.
• Plant-based products can legally use traditional meat-related terms, provided they don’t mislead consumers.
• Member States cannot impose broad bans or restrictions on these terms without violating harmonized EU rules.
• Enforcement remains possible, but only when clear consumer deception can be proven.
Why This Matters
This ruling is a victory for the plant-based food industry, affirming their ability to market products with familiar, descriptive language. It also underscores the strength of EU-wide regulatory harmonization, limiting Member States’ ability to introduce divergent food labelling rules. For consumers, the decision supports transparency without sacrificing clarity or innovation in food naming.