Plans abandoned five years ago have resurfaced in Brussels, with a messy series of proposals to ban the use of everyday language to describe plant-based meat.

Two competing sets of planned restrictions, being discussed in both the European Parliament and the European Commission, would ban companies in all 27 EU member states from using terms ranging from ‘meat’ and ‘like chicken’ to ‘burger’ and ‘sausage’ – used for decades on plant-based food labels.

As they consider these plans, policymakers should put common sense before rhetoric and avoid introducing unnecessary restrictions that will cause more confusion among European consumers and jeopardise a growing sector.

What’s happening in Brussels?

The European Parliament originally debated similar measures in 2020, but MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) ultimately voted against the ‘Veggie Burger Ban’ after it received widespread attention in the international press.

Now, a pair of separate proposals – both aiming to ban widely-understood terms – are back on the table. 

The Commission unveiled a new set of proposals in July 2025 as part of the regular revision of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation. This revision – part of the ongoing reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) – occurs every seven years and is designed to introduce changes to rules governing how agricultural products are sold in the EU.

The plan, which if accepted would likely come into force in 2028, would restrict the use of 29 names for plant-based meat products, including ‘beef’, ‘chicken’, ‘bacon’, ‘breast’, ‘wing’ and ‘drumstick’.

Separately, in spring 2025, French MEP Céline Imart brought forward an amendment to the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, as part of a ‘targeted revision’ of the CMO Regulation intended to strengthen existing rules to protect farmers. Her proposals, accepted by committee members last week, go even further. 

This plan uses similar language to the original Veggie Burger Ban and aims to restrict the use of any terms related to animal species, cuts of meat or even shapes associated with conventional meat products. 

It would ban terms like ‘steak’, ‘escalope’ and ‘hamburger’ for plant-based products, along with names for cuts of chicken. The proposal would also ban plant-based egg producers from using terms like ‘egg yolk’ or ‘egg white’ and restrict the use of meat-related terms for cultivated meat products that have not yet entered the market.

Imart’s plan will now move to a plenary vote before the entire European Parliament in October. The Commission, Parliament and Council will then enter into informal negotiations to agree on a common final text.

Details remain unclear 

While this is being debated, the Commission’s original proposal is still tabled to be negotiated as part of the CAP reform package throughout 2026 and 2027.

Even to someone who has spent years navigating the complexities of Brussels politics, this is a confusing situation. 

We currently have two separate sets of proposals involving different processes, calling for different changes to the same rules. The details of what will happen with the Commission’s proposal if the Agriculture Committee’s ‘targeted revision’ plan becomes law – and vice versa – remain unclear.   

But both proposals have one thing in common – they are completely unnecessary and would hurt consumers and the EU economy. 

With Europe’s food system facing so many challenges, from severe climate impacts to instability in global trade, it seems ridiculous that the region’s policymakers are paying so much attention to this issue.

Familiar language helps consumers 

The Commission has claimed that its planned restrictions will increase consumer transparency, protect the historical and cultural significance of meat products, and enable clarity for consumers who want the specific ‘nutritional profile’ of meat.

But surveys show that the vast majority of Europeans overwhelmingly support the continued use of ‘meaty’ names for plant-based products. Familiar language helps shoppers understand what to expect in terms of the taste and texture of products they put in their baskets and how to cook them. 

Introducing arbitrary restrictions to long-established labelling practices would be out of touch with people’s everyday use of language.

Harming domestic industry

The EU has promised to simplify and reduce red tape for businesses, so introducing new restrictions that would financially burden the bloc’s evolving plant-based food sector goes against its mandate. 

Labelling restrictions would introduce costs, such as discarding existing packaging and rebranding labels, and could make it less appealing for international companies to enter the EU market.

The plant-based food sector is one of the most innovative and rapidly expanding branches of the European food industry, and sales volumes of plant-based foods are growing across France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The sector also offers opportunities for European farmers to increase production of locally grown crops, such as legumes, as raw ingredients. A growing body of evidence also finds that plant-based meat offers numerous health benefits, especially as an easy, tasty option to help reduce people’s current overconsumption of processed conventional meat.

Rather than wasting their time debating restrictions that consumers have made clear they do not want, policymakers should help create a healthier and more sustainable food system by establishing a level playing field for Europe’s plant-based sector.

Author

Alex Holst Deputy Head of Policy – EU

Alex works with NGOs, think tanks, businesses, and other political actors to advance sustainable proteins in Europe.