“Veggie burgers” and “vegan sausages” can remain on European supermarket shelves, EU negotiators agreed Thursday. However, only products made of animal flesh can use terms like “steak” or “bacon.” Unless that flesh was grown in a lab, in which case, those terms are also off-limits. Those are the broad contours of the compromise reached by EU institutions after an MEP’s sleeper initiative to block vegetarian alternatives from using terms associated with meat — the so-called veggie burger ban — fueled political tensions over an otherwise technical farm file. After months of debate, institutional negotiators agreed on new rules that would ban vegetarian products from using dozens of terms that are typically associated with meat, including “chicken,” “ribs,” “bacon,” “tenderloin,” “liver” and “steak.” The deal still needs to be formally signed off by the Parliament and EU member capitals. The fight exposed a deeper divide in Brussels food politics. Consumer groups attacked the lengthy list of banned words as doing little to help people trying to make choices at the store. “Consumers want to eat healthier and need convenient and affordable options,” said BEUC chief Agustín Reyna. Meat-related names “make it easy for those who want to integrate these options in their diets, and the new rules will increase confusion and are simply not necessary.” For pro-farmer lawmakers on the center-right and right, protecting meaty terminology became a symbolic show of support for livestock producers reeling from sinking profits and regulatory fatigue. They cast themselves as bulwarks against a cosmopolitan push toward alternative proteins. Greens and liberals, meanwhile, dismissed the debate as political theater aimed at farm constituencies, arguing it distracts from structural challenges in the food chain and clashes with Brussels’ competitiveness rhetoric. Negotiators ultimately agreed that veggie sausages and burgers can continue to be sold. The French MEP behind the terminology ban, Céline Imart, hailed the outcome as an “indisputable victory for our farmers.” The agreement, she added, “recognizes the value of farmers’ work and protects their products, which are the result of unique expertise, against a form of unfair competition.” Imart, a grain farmer, also pushed for protections to extend to “cell-cultured products” — i.e. meat grown in labs — which she has previously described as a threat to traditional agriculture. For frustrated lawmakers, the move takes Europe in the wrong direction, essentially knee-capping a nascent sector. “It is absurd that we are attempting to regulate the naming of products that aren’t even on the European market yet,” the Greens Parliamentary negotiator on the file, Anna Strolenberg, told POLITICO ahead of Thursday’s talks on cellular meat. “Our signal to biotech pioneers is: ‘Don’t build it in Europe, move abroad.’” The compromise comes after months of negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission over targeted changes to the bloc’s Common Market Organisation law. The original intent was to update detailed laws on contracts, in the hopes of improving the position of farmers in the agri-food chain, following waves of protests. However, when the proposal reached the Parliament, Imart, the European People’s Party MEP leading negotiations on the file, pushed for the inclusion of a list of meaty terms that would be off-limits to veggie copycats. That quickly became the most hotly debated element, as capitals scrambled to agree on common red lines. In the end, a similar list proposed by the Commission for a future change to the CMO from 2028 onward was used as the basis of negotiations. The terms on this list were more narrow references to cuts and types of meat rather than catch-all terms like burger and sausage.

Presented as an instrument aimed at strengthening farmers’ position in the food supply chain, the targeted revision of the Regulation on the Common Market Organisation was intended to address structural challenges within the sector. Yet, as the trilogue approaches, the debate has gradually crystallized around a different issue: restricting certain denominations used for plant-based products. This shift deserves careful scrutiny. How would limiting widely understood terms concretely improve farmers’ position in the food chain? The connection between the original objective of the proposal and the measure currently under discussion remains insufficiently substantiated. If the stated ambition is to reinforce resilience and fairness within the agricultural chain, it is legitimate to question whether terminology restrictions meaningfully contribute to that goal. > How would limiting widely understood terms concretely improve farmers’ > position in the food chain? In a letter addressed to Members of the European Parliament, GAIA calls for maintaining the current regulatory framework and rejecting the proposed restrictions, whether concerning existing plant-based products or future products derived from cellular agriculture. The objective is clear: to preserve coherent and proportionate regulation that protects consumers without weakening an innovative and strategic sector. Behind a word: a market and jobs Europe holds a leading position in several innovative segments of plant-based alternatives. The European market was estimated at €2.7 billion in 2024 and continues to structure a dynamic industrial ecosystem across member states. Companies operating in this field invest significantly in research and development, expand production capacities, create qualified jobs and actively contribute to the industrial dynamism of the single market. This ecosystem extends well beyond food production. It supports technological innovation, specialised logistics, supply chain transformation and new forms of industrial cooperation. It contributes to the modernization of the European agri-food sector and strengthens the competitiveness of the internal market. In a period where industrial policy and strategic autonomy are central to the European agenda, introducing regulatory uncertainty risks undermining a competitive advantage built on sustained investment and innovation. > The issue therefore goes beyond semantics: it concerns the stability and > predictability of the European regulatory framework. “Behind denominations lies a real European economy: jobs, innovation and competitiveness.” Restricting widely understood terms would entail compliance costs, packaging adjustments, potential litigation and a risk of divergent interpretations across member states. The issue therefore goes beyond semantics: it concerns the stability and predictability of the European regulatory framework — factors that are essential for long-term investment decisions and business planning. Cellular agriculture: anticipate without destabilizing The same reasoning applies to products derived from cellular agriculture. Although not yet present on European shelves, these technologies hold significant potential for future development. Estimates suggest that the cultivated protein value chain could represent between €15 billion and €80 billion in new markets, with the potential to create between 25,000 and 90,000 jobs in Europe. The European Union already counts 47 companies active in cultivated meat out of 174 worldwide, as well as 61 out of 158 companies operating in precision fermentation and biomass technologies. This demonstrates that Europe is not a passive observer but an active participant in emerging food technologies. Yet European investment in novel foods currently represents less than 1 percent of total agri-food innovation funding. In this context, regulatory stability becomes a decisive factor in consolidating emerging technological leadership and retaining investment within the EU. Introducing additional denomination restrictions at such an early stage may send an unintended signal of unpredictability. For innovative sectors that depend on long development cycles and significant capital expenditure, clarity and proportionality in regulation are structural conditions for growth. “Europe can be demanding. It cannot afford to be unpredictable in sectors where it seeks to innovate.” Consumer protection: a framework already validated Consumer protection is a legitimate objective and a cornerstone of EU law. However, it operates within an already established and functional legal framework. The Food Information to Consumers Regulation requires clear, accurate and non-misleading labeling. Annex VI explicitly provides that the absence or substitution of animal-derived ingredients must be indicated. In case C-438/23, the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that this framework provides sufficient safeguards against misleading practices. “The Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed it: EU law already protects consumers.” > A plant-based product clearly identified as such does not constitute > linguistic ambiguity for the vast majority of consumers. The central argument in favor of additional restrictions rests on an assumption of consumer confusion. Yet available evidence indicates that consumers clearly distinguish animal-based products from plant-based alternatives when origin and composition are explicitly stated. Labeling transparency, rather than categorical prohibitions, remains the key instrument for ensuring informed choice. A plant-based product clearly identified as such does not constitute linguistic ambiguity for the vast majority of consumers. The debate should not be trivialized, but one principle deserves emphasis: regulation must protect without infantilizing. Suggesting that a single word, taken in isolation, would systematically mislead consumers underestimates their ability to read labels, understand context and make informed decisions. “Protecting consumers does not mean presuming a lack of discernment.” More than 600 companies and organizations from 22 member states have called for maintaining the current framework, underlining the importance of preserving single market coherence and avoiding regulatory fragmentation detrimental to innovation and competitiveness. Europe can reconcile consumer protection, legal certainty and competitiveness. It can do so by fully enforcing existing rules and targeting actual abuses rather than introducing general prohibitions that generate costs, legal uncertainty and unintended economic consequences. Ultimately, the question is not whether a word is liked or disliked. It is whether, in a context marked by major challenges related to industrial competitiveness, climate transition, economic security and geopolitical tension, this is where the union should concentrate its political and regulatory capital.

The next time your favorite veggie burger quietly rebrands itself as a “plant-based patty,” you now know who to thank: Céline Imart. The grain farmer from southern France, now a first-term lawmaker in the European Parliament, slipped a ban on meaty names for plant-based, fermented and lab-grown foods into an otherwise technical measure. Inside the Parliament, it caused a minor earthquake. Her own group leader, German conservative Manfred Weber, publicly dismissed it as “unnecessary.” The group’s veteran agriculture voice, Herbert Dorfmann, voted against it. Diplomats from several capitals shrugged it off as “silly” or “just stupid.” And yet, as negotiations with EU governments begin, the amendment that everyone assumed would die in the first round is still standing — not because it has a powerful constituency behind it, but because almost no one is expending political capital to bury it. That alone says something about where Europe’s food politics are drifting. A FIGHT ABOUT MORE THAN LABELS Imart insists the amendment isn’t an attack on innovation, but a gesture of respect toward the farmers she represents. “A steak is not just a shape,” she told POLITICO in an interview. “People have eaten meat since the Neolithic. These names carry heritage. They belong to farmers.” She argues some shoppers genuinely confuse plant-based and meat products, despite years of EU surveys showing consumers largely understand what a “veggie burger” is. Her view, she argues, is shaped by what she hears at home. “Maybe some very intelligent people never make mistakes at the supermarket,” she said, referring to Weber and Dorfmann. “But a lot of people in my region do. They don’t always see the difference clearly.” In rural France, where livestock farming remains culturally central, Imart’s argument resonates. Across Europe, similar anxieties simmer. Farmers say they feel squeezed by climate targets, rising costs and what they see as moralizing rhetoric about “healthy and sustainable diets.” The EU once flirted with promoting alternative proteins as part of its Green Deal ambitions. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Today, that political moment has mostly waned. References to “protein diversification” appear in draft strategies only to be scrubbed from the final text. Public support remains dwarfed by the billions the Common Agricultural Policy funnels to animal farming each year. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. This helps explain why an idea dismissed as fringe suddenly doesn’t feel fringe at all. Imart’s amendment taps directly into a broader mood: Defend the farmer first; innovation can wait. BOOM AND BACKLASH The industry caught in the crossfire is no longer niche. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year, with Germany alone accounting for nearly €2 billion. Fermentation-based dairy substitutes are attracting investment, and even though cultivated meat isn’t yet authorized in the EU, it has already become a regulatory flash point. But the sector remains tiny beside the continent’s livestock economy, and is increasingly buffeted by political headwinds. After two years of farmer protests and fatigue over climate and environmental reforms, national governments have closed ranks around traditional agriculture. Countries like Austria, Italy and France have warned that novel foods could undermine “primary farm-based production.” Hungary went even further this week, voting to ban the production and sale of cultivated meat altogether. For alternative protein companies, the irony is hard to miss. They see their products as both a business opportunity and part of the solution to the food system’s climate and environmental footprint, most of which comes from animal farming. Yet they say politics are now moving in the opposite direction. “Policymakers are devoting so much attention to unnecessary restrictions that would harm companies seeking to diversify their business,” said Alex Holst of the Good Food Institute Europe, an interest group for plant-based and cultivated alternatives. He argued that familiar terms like “burger” and “sausage” help consumers understand what they’re buying, not mislead them. WHY THE NAMING BAN WON’T DIE The political climate explains why Imart’s idea suddenly resonates. But Brussels lawmaking procedure explains why it might survive. At the negotiating table, national governments are consumed by the Parliament’s more disruptive ideas on market intervention and supply management, changes they fear could distort markets and limit the authorities’ flexibility to act. Compared with those fights, a naming ban barely registers. Especially in an otherwise technical reform of the EU’s Common Market Organisation, a piece of legislation normally reserved for agricultural specialists focused on crisis reserves and market tools. That gives the amendment unusual space. Several diplomats privately complained it sits awkwardly outside the scope of the original European Commission proposal. But not enough to coordinate a pushback. The Commission, meanwhile, has signaled it can “live with” stricter naming rules, having floated narrower limits in its own post-2027 market plan. That removes what might have been the decisive obstacle. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year. | Jens Kalaene/Getty Images Even translation quirks, like the fact that “filet,” “filete” and “fillet” can mean different things across languages, haven’t slowed it. Imart shrugged those off: “It’s normal that texts evolve. That’s the point of negotiation.” Whether the naming ban makes it into the final law will depend on the coming weeks. But the fact it is even in contention, after being mocked, dismissed and rejected inside Imart’s own political family, is telling. In today’s Brussels, appeals to heritage and identity land more softly than calls for food system innovation. In that climate, that’s all even a fringe idea needs to survive.