The French Conseil d'État Says Yes to "Meat Sounding" for Plant-Based Products
by Maria Laura Grilli
The naming of plant-based products: a controversial issue
The naming of plant-based products that, due to their appearance, texture, or taste, evoke foods of animal origin has been at the centre of an extensive legal and regulatory debate at the European level for years. This issue forms part of a broader context involving the evolution of the food market and increasing attention to sustainability and alternative dietary choices.
At the heart of the discussion is the possibility of using terms traditionally associated with animal-based products — such as ‘steak,’ ‘hamburger,’ ‘fillet,’ or ‘sausage’ — to designate plant-based alternatives. The adoption of such terminology aims to make these products more familiar and appealing to consumers by evoking the positive qualities of well-known foods. However, the matter raises significant legal and commercial concerns, particularly regarding accurate consumer information, the proper functioning of the market, and the compatibility of any restrictions with EU law.
The significance of the issue unfolds within a context in which the food industry is evolving rapidly, and plant-based alternatives may offer at least a partial response to the demand for more sustainable eating patterns, as well as to the ongoing rise in meat and animal protein consumption (FAO Statistical Yearbook 2024). Products such as vegetable burgers, tofu sausages, and vegetable steaks have now become part of everyday commercial language and consumer experience, establishing themselves in the food market and within large-scale distribution networks. This phenomenon, referred to as 'meat sounding' (Demartini, 2022), has sparked a heated debate, characterised by opposing views: on the one hand, those advocating for a ban on the use of meat-related terms for plant-based products; on the other, those arguing that such restrictions are unjustified and may even conflict with principles enshrined in relevant European regulations.
Across Europe, several countries have enacted regulations prohibiting the use of terms traditionally referring to animal-based foods for plant-based products. Among them is Italy, where the legislator recently addressed the issue with Law No. 172 of 1 December 2023, Article 3 of which introduces the "Prohibition on the use of meat-related denominations for processed products containing vegetable proteins" (Panebianco, 2023; Formici, 2023). Besides the Italian case, particular attention should be paid to developments in France, where recent legislation concerning such products has been subject first to examination by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and, more recently, to a review by the Conseil d'État.
This article aims to analyse the regulatory and judicial developments surrounding the naming of plant-based products, with particular attention to the decisions of the CJEU and the subsequent decision of the French Conseil d'État. The analysis will begin with the judgment by which the Conseil d'État annulled the national decree that introduced restrictions on the use of terms traditionally associated with animal-based products to designate plant-based alternatives. To fully understand the French court’s decision, it is necessary to take a step back and examine the 2024 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was prompted by a preliminary reference submitted by the Conseil d'État. The Luxembourg court's decision has sparked considerable debate, as it contrasts with — or at least diverges from — its own previous position established in a 2017 ruling.
France and Meat Sounding: a sign of openness towards plant-based products?
On 28 January 2025, the French Conseil d'État, in its decision No. 492839, annulled Decree No. 2024-144 of 26 February 2024, which prohibited the use of names traditionally associated with meat products for foods containing vegetable proteins.
The decree prohibited the use of terms such as steak, filet, and sausage to describe plant-based products, and provided for administrative sanctions in cases of violation. As stated in the explanatory memorandum at the beginning of the decree, the measure "establishes the list of terms whose use is prohibited for the designation of foodstuffs containing vegetable protein (Annex 1) and the list of terms authorised for the designation of foodstuffs of animal origin that may contain vegetable protein, as well as the maximum percentage of vegetable protein that these products may contain in order to use these terms (Annex 2)" (own translation).
The French measure thus sought to strictly regulate the labelling of foodstuffs, with the aim of preventing possible ambiguities and ensuring clear and transparent communication to consumers, thereby avoiding any confusion between meat products and plant-based alternatives. Sanctions included fines of up to EUR 1,500 for individuals and up to EUR 7,500 for legal entities who used meat-related terms to describe foods containing plant proteins.
The prohibition on the use of the aforementioned terms to designate plant-based products triggered a reaction from several companies involved in the production of such goods — including Protéines France, the European Vegetarian Union (EVU), the French Vegetarian Association (AVF), and Beyond Meat Inc. — which challenged the measure before the Conseil d'État, opposing the Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique, arguing that the decree was contrary to European Union law.
Among their arguments, the plaintiffs contended that the decree violated Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, which governs food information to consumers within the European Union. They also argued that the decree represented an unjustified restriction on the free movement of goods, failed to provide effective consumer protection — given the lack of evidence that such products could cause confusion — and harmed the plant protein sector, ultimately constituting a hindrance to the ecological transition. Finally, they asserted that the ban limited the growth of the plant-based alternatives market, which is crucial for environmental sustainability and emissions reduction, as recognised in the European Parliament Resolution of 19 October 2023 on the European protein strategy (2023/2015(INI)).
Faced with these claims, the Conseil d'État referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which delivered its decision on 4 October 2024 (C-438/23) in favour of the plaintiffs, marking a turning point in the regulation of plant-based product names.
The Court found that Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information already ensures an adequate level of consumer protection, rendering additional national restrictions unnecessary. According to the judgment, the average consumer is capable of distinguishing between products containing plant proteins and those made from meat, provided that the labelling is clear and transparent.
Moreover, the CJEU ruled that national legislation cannot prohibit the use of terms such as steak or hamburger for plant-based products unless there are specific legal criteria governing such terms at the EU level. In the absence of such harmonised rules, a generalised ban such as that introduced by the French decree contravenes the principles of internal market harmonisation and the free movement of goods within the European Union.
Lastly, the Court affirmed that names traditionally associated with animal-based products may be used for plant-based foods, provided that the plant origin of the product is clearly indicated on the label, thereby avoiding any risk of misleading the consumer.
In an attempt to better understand the motivations behind the Luxembourg judges' decision on meat sounding, it can be assumed that their primary objective was to strike a balance between competing interests: on the one hand, the evolution of language within the food sector and new consumption habits; on the other, the need to apply European rules which, absent an evolutionary interpretation, seem to offer limited flexibility to adapt to emerging market demands.
What the Court sought to achieve — while eliciting conflicting opinions regarding its merits (Aversano, 2025) — was to reconcile businesses' right to communicate effectively and comprehensibly with the duty to protect consumers, all while respecting the principle of proportionality enshrined in EU law.
This interpretative choice reflects a clear intent to avoid excessively restrictive bans which, although justified by consumer protection concerns, risk undermining the free movement of goods and competition within the single market. Under European law, any restriction must be justified, necessary, and proportionate to the objective pursued.
With this decision, the CJEU appears to promote a more modern and flexible vision of food law — one capable of adapting to linguistic changes and new production trends without compromising clarity and transparency towards consumers. In this sense, according to some commentators, the judgment contributes to building a regulatory framework that is more aligned with market realities and more attuned to European policies on sustainability, innovation, and food transition (Aversano, 2025; Abbondandolo, 2024).
Following the aforementioned ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the case returned to the attention of the French judiciary. In particular, on 28 January 2025, the Conseil d'État, drawing on the interpretation provided by the Luxembourg judges, annulled Decree No. 2024-144 of 26 February 2024, which had previously been challenged.
The decision of the French judges thus aligns with the CJEU's ruling, confirming its orientation and fully incorporating its principles into national law. The Conseil d'État upheld the applicants' arguments, reaffirming that European law takes precedence over national legislation and that the French decree, by introducing restrictions not provided for under EU law, lacked a valid legal basis.
Specifically, the ruling referenced Article 38 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, which prohibits member states from adopting measures that restrict the free movement of goods complying with EU law, and Article 17, which states that the name of a food must correspond to its legal name where one exists, or otherwise to a customary or descriptive name that is clear to the consumer.
To conclude…
the judgments analysed regarding the designation of plant-based products offer significant insights into the delicate balance between consumer protection, freedom of economic initiative, fair competition, and regulatory harmonisation within the framework of European Union law. The French case, marked by the annulment of Decree No. 2024-144 by the Conseil d'État, based on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in Case C-438/23 of 4 October 2024, demonstrates a clear tendency to limit national regulatory initiatives which, in the absence of a concrete risk of consumer confusion, conflict with the principles of proportionality and the free movement of goods within the internal market.
This approach reflects an evolutionary interpretation of the rules on food information, prioritising the provision of correct and transparent information to consumers over a rigid adherence to traditional terminology.
With its 2024 decision, the CJEU distances itself from its earlier decision of 14 June 2017, Case C-422/16, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v. TofuTown.com GmbH, in which the Luxembourg judges had taken a more restrictive approach with regard to names traditionally reserved for dairy products. In that instance, the Court interpreted Article 78 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, read alongside Annex VII, Part III, and Decision 2010/791/EU, affirming the unlawfulness of using terms such as ‘milk’, ‘butter’, ‘cheese’, ‘cream’, or ‘yoghurt’ for exclusively plant-based products, even when accompanied by descriptive clarifications regarding their real composition and origin (D. Pisanello, 2017). The Court thus confirmed the strict legal protection of dairy terms, emphasising the importance of safeguarding legal designations and preventing any risk of consumer confusion, even a potential one.
The comparison between these two decisions raises questions about the consistency of the jurisprudential approach in this area and, more broadly, about the evolving interpretation of European food law. While a restrictive stance continues to apply in the dairy sector — firmly tied to the reservation of legal names — a more flexible approach has emerged for meat alternatives, one grounded in the principle of transparency and the effectiveness of commercial communication in guiding consumer choices.
In this evolving landscape, the debate remains open between the plant-based industry, which advocates for the use of terminology that facilitates consumer understanding, and the representatives of the livestock sector, who call for stricter protection of traditional names as expressions of the identity and quality of European agri-food production.
Ultimately, the future development of EU law — both legislative and jurisprudential — will define the extent to which Member States may regulate food product designations. The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Union’s institutions will be crucial in ensuring a coherent application of single market principles and in shaping food regulation that successfully balances the demands of transparency, consumer protection, innovation, and sustainability.