Meat against everything: the EU Parliament’s position on the prohibition of meat-related terms
By Valeria Paganizza
Was it predictable? Probably yes. What are we referring to? Simple: to the amendment that could lead to the ban on the use of certain names, like ‘steak’, ‘escalope’, ‘sausage’, ‘burger’, ‘hamburger’, ‘egg yolk’ and ‘egg white’, for products other than products of animal origin (even if the amendments inappropriately refer to meat products and meat preparations). On the 08th of October, during the plenary session, the European Parliament voted on its amendments to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) 2021/2116 as regards the strengthening of the position of farmers in the food supply chain (COM(2024)0577 – C10-0209/2024 – 2024/0319(COD)).
What is the proposal about? Better, what “was” it about? The original proposal of the Commission aimed at revising some of the Common Agricultural Policy Regulations in order to strengthen farmers’ position in the market while ensuring, in line with the objectives of the mentioned policy (see Article 39 TFEU), fair incomes to farmers. Among the main provisions of the proposal, there was the clarification of concepts like “fair,” “equitable,” and “short supply chain” (Article 1 of the original text of the proposal, inserting a subsection 3a in Regulation (EU) no 1308/2013); the strengthening of contractual requirements [amendment to Articles 148 and 168 of Regulation (EU) no 1308/2013]; the partial revision of the role of producers’ organisations (amendment to Article 152 of Regulation (EU) no 1308/2013) and the provisions on their statute (amendment to Article 153 of Regulation (EU) no 1308/2013). The original proposal suggested the amendment on Article 210a of Regulation (EU) no 1308/2013 on vertical and horizontal initiatives for sustainability and on Article 222 on rules on competition applicable to agriculture.
As any other act subject to the ordinary legislative procedure under Article 294 TFEU, the Commission’s proposal was submitted to the Parliament and the Council for the first reading. And here the issue blew up. As anticipated above, the Parliament included in the approved text some amendments that have drawn sharp criticism.
The EU Institution has passed, in particular, an amendment to Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) no 1308/2013 (amendment n. 113), inserting a Part IIa and a definition for “meat” that would sound as follows: «‘meat’ means edible parts of the animals referred to in points 1.2 to 1.8 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, including blood. The meat-related terms and names that fall under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and are currently used for meat and meat cuts shall be reserved exclusively for the edible parts of the animals». This wording immediately suggests some questions, like the meaning of “meat-related terms” which does not seem to be defined in the Regulation or in other acts of the European Union. If a provision like this is passed, there is a certain discretion in defining what the scope of this expression is. Article 17 of Regulation (EU) no 1169/2011 would not help the reader to fill with content the words, since it refers just to the name to be used for a food when informing consumers, and that represents a following step: first the name should be identified; then, consumers can be properly informed under Article 17. If the law establishes a name for a food, that name must be used (legal name). This is what happens, for instance, for milk and wine. If a legal name does not exist, then the food business operator shall use a name that is usually used to identify that product (customary name). If a customary name is not present, then the food business operator will describe the nature of the food (descriptive name). Now, let’s check the amendment. What are the meat-related terms or names that are currently used for meat and meat cuts? Can we really “reserve” them to «edible parts of the animals» or would such a provision exclude from the markets products that have always been called by those names? Can we say, for instance, that “filet” or “fillet” is a meat cut? Shall it be reserved for meat? Does this mean that food business operators will not be allowed to use such a name for fish? And what about tofu fillet?
Let’s make it more complex: would “steak,” “burger,” and “sausage” be words reserved just for meat, even if they have been used also for plant-based products for decades? And we are not talking about “novel foods” but just referring to very common products made of soy and/or vegetables (spinach, potatoes, carrots, peas, onions, etc.).
According to the amendments of the European Parliament, the answer should be in the affirmative. When defining ‘Meat products’, the new text suggests that the expression «means processed products resulting from the processing of meat or from the further processing of such processed products, so that the cut surface shows that the product no longer has the characteristics of fresh meat. Names that fall under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 that are currently used for meat products and meat preparations shall be reserved exclusively for products containing meat» and it adds «These names include, for example: Steak; Escalope; Sausage; Burger; Hamburger; Egg yolk; Egg white». Besides the fact that these are very common names, currently used for several non-meat products, have you noticed anything strange? Have you, for instance, noticed that, according to the EU Parliament, “egg yolk” and “egg white” are considered “products containing meat”. It is quite clear that the EU Institution is making some confusion between products that really contain meat and “products of animal origin”.
The Reader might have the impression that the amendments of the Parliament were written in a hasty manner. The feeling could be strengthened when considering that the further wording of the texts voted by the Institution adds: «The poultry products and cuts defined in Regulation (EU) No 543/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EU) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat shall be reserved exclusively for the edible parts of animals and products containing poultrymeat». What does this mean? How can “poultry products and cuts” be reserved for edible parts of animals and products containing poultry meat? It is obvious that poultry products are made of poultry. Probably the co-legislature wanted to refer to the “names” of the poultry products and cuts. That would have made more sense. However, isn’t it a pleonasm? As we mentioned a few lines above, the amendments passed by the Parliament were already including poultry and poultry meat when covering, with the definition of meat, «edible parts of the animals referred to in points 1.2 to 1.8 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004». Point 1.3 includes indeed «1.3. ‘Poultry’ means farmed birds, including birds that are not considered as domestic but which are farmed as domestic animals, with the exception of ratites». The same considerations should be drawn for all the amendments referring to meat, meat products, products containing meat, cuts, and relevant names.
The fact that a revision was required before submitting the amendments to the vote of the plenary session is also suggested by the last paragraph of the amendment we are considering, where it states that «The above-mentioned names shall not be used for any product other than the products referred to and shall exclude cell-cultured products». This statement follows the paragraph on poultry meat. Shall it be referred to this paragraph, or shall it instead refer to any “name” related to meat? Logic suggests that the interpretation should be an extensive one, including any name related to meat, as regulated in the whole amendment.
Again, the reasonableness of this provision could be questionable if we consider that meat from cell cultivation has not been authorised yet and, even if an authorisation is issued under Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, the Implementing Regulation will include any information to avoid consumers’ misleading.
Now, let’s try to be very practical. What does the Parliament want to obtain with the amendments? If the attempt is to protect farmers, we cannot see what the point is. The prohibition of using certain terms is not related in any way to the primary production: changing a name to a non-meat product will not lead farmers to improved quality of life or greater incomes. On the one hand, if they farm animals, no impact will affect production. On the other hand, if they produce vegetables or soy to be used in the plant-based products, they will not have any benefits from the mentioned limitation. The amendments, therefore, have not been included for farmers’ protection.
Someone could state that the purpose was to protect consumers. The question that a reader could have is, however, “Protecting consumers from what?”. If a practice is misleading, provisions (such as Article 7 of Regulation (EU) no 1169/2011) are already present in EU legislation. Moreover, the average consumer is able to understand what “plant-based,” “vegetable,” and “soy” mean and is also able to distinguish between meat and non-meat products if properly labelled. Let’s just add a further element of thought: how could a food business operator describe a veggie burger or vegetable balls? Would it be clearer to call it “veggie burger” or “vegetable medal”?
Let’s open another question. Have you ever ordered home-delivered food? Let’s suppose that a restaurant has in its menu the list of hamburger sandwiches. Would they be breaching the law if they include, in the list, fish and vegetarian options? If the text remains that adopted by the Parliament, they will.
We are using the “if clause” because the Parliament’s position was adopted at first reading. Now it must communicate it to the Council, which has to approve the act in the same wording. If, however, it does not approve the European Parliament’s text, it shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the European Parliament for the following reading.
What one could hope is that the Council realises the mistake and the negative impact that the European Parliament’s hasty text is going to have and does not approve the amendments. Pessimists would probably predict that, considering the positioning of some EU governments against plant-based products and cell-cultured meat, the possibility that the Council votes against the analysed amendments is definitely low, despite the issues that the current wording could create for other sectors (fish) and for consumers’ information.