The European Parliament has voted to limit how plant-based foods can be labelled. This decision could change how terms like burger, steak, and sausage are used across the European Union. It has already sparked debate across the food, farming, and legal sectors.
The Vote and What It Means
On 8 October 2025, Members of the European Parliament voted in favour of an amendment to certain EU Regulations (No. 1308/2013, 2021/2115 and 2021/2116), in the field of agricultural products, restricting meat-related terms to animal-based products. Words such as “burger” and “sausage” would be reserved exclusively for foods made from meat.
The proposal passed with 355 votes in favour and 247 against. Although the amendment has passed the vote, it is not yet law. The proposal must still go through negotiations between the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of the EU.
If approved, plant-based producers would be unable to use names like “veggie burger”, “plant-based sausage” or “tofu steak”.
The Purpose Behind the Proposal
The proposal allegedly aims to provide clarity and transparency for consumers while protecting traditional meat producers. Supporters believe meat-related names should apply only to animal-based products to avoid confusion.
This approach mirrors existing EU dairy regulations, which already prevent plant-based alternatives from using words like milk, cheese, and yoghurt. Lawmakers want to create consistency across all food labelling standards.
The Debate
Arguments in Favour
Supporters of the proposal believe it will help consumers clearly understand what they are purchasing by ensuring that food labels accurately reflect their contents. They also argue that the measure protects traditional producers and livestock farmers, allowing their products to retain distinct recognition in the market. In addition, it maintains consistency with existing EU food labelling laws, aligning plant-based labelling rules with those already in place for other food categories.
Arguments Against
On the other hand, opponents argue that consumers are not misled by terms such as “veggie burger” as packaging and context make it clear that these products are not made from meat. They also point out that rebranding and marketing changes could be costly. Particularly for smaller producers and that the restrictions may stifle innovation in the rapidly growing plant-based food sector.
What Happens Next
The proposal will now move into trilogue negotiations involving the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of the EU. These discussions may result in further amendments before the law is finalised.
If adopted, each EU Member State will be responsible for enforcing the new labelling rules.
The Potential Impact
For Businesses
Plant-based producers would need to review product names and marketing materials to meet new requirements. Rebranding could be costly and time-consuming, particularly for smaller companies. Larger corporations operating internationally may face challenges maintaining consistent branding across markets.
For the Legal Sector
The text approved by the EU Parliament could be challenged from the point of view of constituting an infringement to the principle of freedom of expression, as provided for under Art. 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (the “ECHR”).
Indeed, this provision does not only apply to expressions aiming to convey political, religious, cultural or artistic contents, but also to the so-called “commercial speech”.
It has already been noted, long time ago, that “Freedom of expression in its true dimension is the right to receive and to impart information and ideas. Commercial speech is directly connected with that freedom” (Concurring Opinion of Judge Pettiti in the Case of Barthold v. Germany, Judgment of the ECHR of 25 March 1985).
Furthermore, “In the field of human rights, it is the exceptions, and not the principles, which [are] to be interpreted narrowly. This proposition is especially true in relation to the freedom of expression (…). It is just as important to guarantee the freedom of expression in relation to the practices of a commercial undertaking as it is in relation to the conduct of a head of government (…)” (See Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Gölcüklü, Pettiti, Russo, Spielmann, De Meyer, Carrillo Salcedo and Valticos in the case of Markt Intern Verlag Gmbh and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, Judgment of the ECHR of 20 November 1989).
And again: “The Court would first point out that Article 10 guarantees freedom of expression to ‘everyone’. No distinction is made in it according to whether the type of aim pursued is profit-making or not (…)” (See the case of Casado Coca v. Spain, Judgment of the ECHR of 24 February 1994, paragraph 35).
Therefore, in order to be compatible with Art. 10 of the ECHR, the restriction on the use of meat related words, imposed by the European Parliament, would need to pass the tests provided for under its second paragraph and, namely, would need to be “necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.
However, such a restriction appears to be neither “necessary in a democratic society”, nor pursuing one of the interests and purposes listed above.
In particular, the use of names like “veggie burger” and similar is not misleading for consumers wishing to buy meat products, since this kind of names is perfectly capable of drawing their attention on the fact that the respective products do not contain meat.
On the other hand, as pointed out in the plant-based industry, the ban would force companies and consumers to use unfamiliar terms, significantly complicating market access and slowing innovation.
A final remark on this brief legal assessment: Art. 10 of the ECHR is applicable in all Member States of the EU, which have ratified the Convention, but does not bind the EU themselves, which are not a party to the Convention.
However, the European Court of Justice (organism that have the power to annul the EU legislative acts) have already pointed out that “international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories (like the EHCR, editor’s note), can supply guidelines which should be followed within the framework of Community law” (see Case 4/73, Nold v. Commission, Judgment of the ECJ of 14 May 1974).
Hence, if the amendment approved by the European Parliament on October 8th will become effective, the legality of the same could be challenged before the European Court of Justice.
The Bigger Picture
The European Parliament’s vote marks a major step in the debate over how plant-based foods should be labelled and marketed. While the measure is not yet law, it reflects a broader move towards stricter definitions within the EU’s food labelling framework. The next few months will be key as EU institutions and Member States negotiate the final outcome.
How 360 Business Law Can Help
At 360 Business Law, our experienced team supports clients across a wide range of sectors, helping them navigate complex legal and regulatory landscapes. Whether adapting to new legislation or managing compliance we provide practical, commercially focused advice tailored to each client’s needs. As regulations continue to evolve both in the UK and internationally, we’re here to guide businesses through change with clarity and confidence.
We do have offices in Brussels and lawyers pleading before the European Court of Justice.
For tailored guidance, contact 360 Business Law today