Why Europe’s proposed naming rules for plant-based foods are raising alarms across the industry

As European policymakers prepared to debate new naming rules for plant-based foods, food companies across the continent were increasingly vocal about what they believed was at stake. The European Parliament’s October 2025 vote set the stage for a sweeping overhaul of how vegetarian and vegan products could be described, a move supporters said would reduce consumer confusion but that industry leaders argued would have the opposite effect.

The proposal sought to block a list of 29 meat-associated terms, including beef, ribs, bacon and breast, from being used on vegetarian or plant-based labels. Depending on how the negotiations evolved, everyday staples such as veggie burgers and plant-based sausages could also face restrictions. The draft also redefined meat exclusively as the edible part of an animal, which would exclude a large part of the vocabulary that plant-based foods have used for years.

The European Commission said its aim was to improve transparency and preserve the historical role of meat terminology. The debate, however, was far from settled. The proposal moved into trilogue negotiations between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council, with a final decision expected in 2026.

While the political momentum reflected a shift in parliamentary composition following the 2024 elections, food companies said the regulatory direction overlooked practical realities. For producers working in plant-based categories, the language now under scrutiny formed the backbone of how they communicated with consumers and how consumers navigated the shelf.

At Planted, which sells plant-based duck, bratwurst and schnitzel, CEO Pascal Bieri said the implications were immediate. “We are such a consumer-facing company,” he said. “Since we are talking about consumer-facing language with this regulation, it is basically at the core of what we do.” Planted’s range depends on naming conventions that signal how products should be cooked, served and used. Without those cues, he said the company would be forced to restart a conversation with consumers that had taken years to build.

Other brands described a similar risk. La Vie’s packaging for its plant-based ham, lardons and bacon leaned intentionally into meat culture, complete with illustrated pigs cheerfully sampling vegan versions of the foods they once represented. CEO Nicolas Schweitzer said the familiar terms helped shoppers understand what the company was offering. “It would make everything less clear,” he said. “Everyone understands what plant-based bacon means. If we cannot write it on the pack, we will just end up showing a picture, and people might actually get confused.”

For Germany’s Rügenwalder Mühle, which produces both conventional and plant-based meats, clarity was at the heart of the concern. “If we were forced to abandon familiar terms like burger or schnitzel, we would risk losing the clarity and recognition shoppers rely on,” said Claudia Hauschild, Head of Communications and Sustainability. “It is not confusion we would be solving, it is confusion we would be creating.”

Hauschild said real-world consumption patterns already showed the problem the Commission aimed to fix did not exist. German retailers used straightforward vegan and vegetarian identifiers, which she said worked well and gave consumers exactly the information they needed. “People understand perfectly well what a vegan burger is,” she said.

Those views were echoed by Rutger Rozendaal, CEO of The Vegetarian Butcher, whose brand explicitly references traditional meat culture. “Consumers choose The Vegetarian Butcher precisely because our products resemble animal meat in taste, texture, shape and preparation,” he said. He pointed to research showing that consumers interpreted terms like veggie burger or plant-based sausage with no difficulty. Removing them, he said, would obscure rather than illuminate.

The result, according to multiple companies, would be a need to re-educate shoppers while simultaneously rebuilding brand identity. Bieri noted the practical challenge: “We as an industry need to find new words to describe to a consumer what a plant-based schnitzel is in the future. I do not know what that is yet. I do not think it makes sense for every company to call them plates, discs or structures. What is a disc? Is it a burger? Is it a schnitzel?”

Beyond consumer communication, companies were concerned about operational impact. Any renaming would require packaging redesigns, artwork changes, new logistics processes and product updates across digital and in-store systems. For Rügenwalder Mühle, Hauschild estimated that as much as 70% of its plant-based range might be affected, with associated costs in the mid-single-digit millions of euros.

The challenge extended to stock management. Schweitzer said La Vie sometimes held up to a year’s worth of packaging inventory, which would have to be discarded if the proposal passed as written. “It is an enormous waste issue,” he said. “Throwing away that volume of packaging would be financially and environmentally absurd.”

Companies also questioned the fairness of the measure. If meat producers were able to continue using established terms while plant-based brands lost access to them, executives said the result would be an uneven marketplace that disadvantaged an industry the EU said it wanted to support in the context of climate and food security goals. “This is not an economy-friendly policy,” Bieri said. “Business relies on certainty. You want predictability from lawmakers.”

The discussion extended into cultivated meat as well. Although cultivated products follow a different regulatory pathway, the broader direction of food labeling policy could influence investor confidence and long-term opportunities. Some founders reported that uncertainty had already slowed decision-making among partners and potential backers.

What concerned many companies most was the potential effect on Europe’s protein transition. Plant-based foods were widely recognized as a lever for reducing agricultural emissions, diversifying protein supply, and improving resilience in the food system. Europe had invested heavily in the sector, and companies feared that restrictive labeling rules signaled a mismatch between policy objectives and regulatory practice.

Rozendaal said there was an opportunity for the EU to support innovation more constructively. He argued that embracing familiar language would make sustainable choices more accessible and keep Europe competitive in a growing global market. Hauschild added that a harmonized labeling system, paired with clear plant-based or vegan identifiers, would create consistency without penalizing terminology that consumers already understood.

Across the companies interviewed, the recommendations were similar. Maintain existing labeling freedoms. Protect clarity by allowing terms that communicate taste, usage and preparation. Develop EU-wide standards to avoid fragmented national rules. And base decisions on consumer evidence rather than sectoral pressure.

As the trilogue discussions approached, it was increasingly clear that the outcome would shape the future of plant-based food development in Europe. Supportive regulation could accelerate innovation and help meet climate goals. Restrictive language, companies warned, could do the opposite, slowing product adoption at a moment when Europe’s food system was undergoing transformation.

The debate now rested on a central question: would policymakers choose a regulatory framework that enabled consumers to make informed choices without undermining an industry that was contributing to Europe’s sustainability ambitions?