EU Court Rejects French Petition To Ban Meaty Terms For Plant-Based Alternatives

The following report is by Courthouse News Service:

 Europe’s high court threw out an attempt by France to ban the use of terms like “veggie steak” and “vegan pork fat,” giving a boost to Europe’s burgeoning plant-based meat makers. 

The European Court of Justice said the use of meat terms to describe plant-based meat alternatives does not mislead consumers and it called France’s 2021 decree unlawful because it was banning the use of meat terms that had not been defined in law. 

In other words, France can’t ban a “veggie steak” because it hadn’t legally defined what a steak is — or for that matter, what pork, filets or sausages are, legally speaking.   

“Where no legal name has been adopted, a member state may not prohibit the use of terms traditionally associated with products of animal origin to designate a product containing vegetable proteins,” the court said in a statement. The ruling was not immediately available in English. 

Protéines France, a lobby group, the European Vegetarian Union, the Vegetarian Association of France and Beyond Meat Inc., a plant-based food producer, challenged the French decree. 

“This is an especially big” court win, said Rafael Pinto, a policy manager for European Vegetarian Union, in a telephone interview. 

He said France passed its decree after an effort to impose an EU-wide ban was defeated in the European Parliament in 2021. 

With this ruling, similar bans under consideration in Italy and Hungary won’t pass muster, he said.

Conservative and far-right forces in Europe are pushing to curb the sale of plant-based meat alternatives and novel meats cultivated in laboratories. They depict these food innovations as a threat to traditional culture and farmers.  

Still, the court’s ruling leaves open another possibility: Governments may attempt to set into law definitions over what is and isn’t meat.  

Pinto doubted such a tactic would work due to the sheer difficulty to define what is a meat product in Europe, a multilingual continent with such a rich and varied history of meat making.  

“Defining meat and meat terms is extremely, extremely difficult,” he said. 

“A sausage in France might not be the same as a sausage in Germany,” he said. “This will mean that even for meat products, if they go ahead with these bans, we might have on the market meat products being sold under different names.”

However, he noted there is precedent in Europe for defining a food product. Since the 1980s, Europe has had a clear definition for what milk is and alternatives, such as milk-like soy and rice drinks, cannot use the term “milk” on their labels.    

“Milk is protected,” he said. “So, we say a soy drink, an  almond drink.” 

The court also dismissed arguments that plant-based meat products mislead consumers by making them think they are eating animal-based meat. It said EU label rules ensure consumers know what they are buying.  

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; [3] Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. [4] For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: [5] For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

I quote that passage quite regularly because we routinely keep seeing these approximately 2,000-year-old prophecy play out in front of our eyes almost regularly nowadays; and this report is another example of that. This strike down from the EU court will act as a precedent for companies to hypocritically label their fake slop as “meat.”

---

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE