Why EU meat term ban talks collapsed summary
- European Parliament voted to ban meat terms for meat substitutes
- Talks collapsed after late draft changes added “liver” and “ham” terms
- Denmark-led council said changes lacked mandate
- Member states called ban unnecessary and unrelated to main regulation
- Ban unlikely long term due to strong opposition from more than ten states
The European Parliament recently voted in favour of the proposal to ban meat-related terms – such as “burger”, “steak” and “sausage” – from being used to describe meat-free substitutes.
The ban was included as an amendment in a proposal to review regulations around the EU’s Common Market Organisation (CMO).
The EU meat term ban created strong debate following its introduction. Its proponents argued that it would protect the livelihoods of farmers and avoid consumer confusion. Critics, including former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, denied that labelling causes consumer confusion and stressed the importance of meat alternatives for sustainability.
However, it now looks like the ban won’t go ahead, at least in the short term, after talks between Parliament and member states collapsed.
Why did talks collapse?
Following the European Parliament’s vote in favour of the ban, implementation looked increasingly likely. Previous attempts to put similar bans in place had stalled once reaching Parliament, so the progress of this one was unprecedented.
However, following a Parliament vote comes talks with member states through the European Council. This is where the proposal fell short.
This happened in part due to the fact that Céline Imart, the French MEP who introduced the ban, reopened the draft at a late stage in the discussion, says Katia Merten-Lentz, partner at law firm Food Law Science and Partners. Imart’s additions, which included two new banned terms (“liver” and “ham”) caused confusion among member states.
The Denmark-led council felt it had no mandate to move forward with Imart’s additional changes, so the talks collapsed.
Why did member states oppose the ban?
Member states opposed the ban for a number of reasons, explains Merten-Lentz.
Firstly, the amendment was largely unrelated to the broader regulation in which it was contained, which was focused on strengthening farmers’ positions in contracts. Labelling is already covered by a separate framework.
Secondly, many member states, including Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, viewed the ban as “unnecessary and disproportionate”, and doubted whether consumers really were confused by the use of meat-related terms for meat alternatives.
“More urgent agricultural and food-policy challenges require attention, including farmer incomes, market stability, and sustainability.”
The research on this topic is varied, with some studies suggesting that labelling does cause confusion, and others concluding that it does not.
Could the ban still go ahead?
While it is not definitive, the collapse of the talks means that the ban will, at least for now, be postponed.
Imart has not given up, however, and hopes to reopen the issue under the EU Council’s Cypriot Presidency in January.
However, Merten-Lentz is sceptical about the ban going ahead even in the long term.
In her view, “due to the strong opposition from more than 10 Member States and the fragility of the amendment regarding its legal basis, there is no future for it within this framework.”
