Summary of EU naming ban impact
- EU ban restricts terms like chicken and steak but exempts burgers
- Short term disruption expected as brands lose useful meaty naming shorthand
- Impact limited as sector shifts away from explicit meat mimicry products
- Ban may accelerate growth of non-mimic products such as tofu
- Brands expected to adapt creatively while consumer demand remains stable
A ban on the use of ‘meaty’ names for meat substitutes has been agreed by the EU.
The ban will cover 31 terms, including ‘chicken’, ‘beef’ and ‘steak’. The terms ‘burger’ and ‘sausage’ are exempt from its scope. Member states need to vote to confirm the ban, but this is expected to be a formality.
How will such a ban affect the plant-based and meat substitute sectors? They are already beleaguered by falling sales for major brands and consumer scepticism. Could the ban add to their problems?
Short-term disruption
The ban may certainly pose difficulties for plant-based makers, especially in the short-term.
It may “create unnecessary friction at exactly the wrong time”, says Nandini Roy Choudhury, principal consultant at market analytics company Future Market Insights.
“The category is already working to overcome questions around taste, texture, value, and processing, so adding terminology restrictions makes consumer communication harder, not easier.”
Up until now, ‘meaty’ names have worked as ‘useful shorthand’, says Choudhury, to explain format, eating experience, and usage occasion. Removing these could be a setback for the sector.
Nevertheless, she suggests, the damage will be short-term, and ultimately not a major disruption to the market’s long-term direction.
The impact may be limited
The ban may not cause severe damage to the plant-based sector overall.
The sector is moving away from products that explicitly mimic meat, points out Tom Rees, global insight manager for staple foods at market analytics company Euromonitor.
This means that restrictions on the term may not hurt the sector as much as they may have done had they been implemented earlier. Explicit meat analogues – the products that the ban will affect – “already have a core audience that will seek them out”, suggests Rees.
Meanwhile, the key barriers to consumer acceptance – taste, perception of health, processing – will not change with the naming ban. Using meat-related terms was not attracting sceptical consumers anyway, Rees stresses.
For those in the middle, who are curious to try the products, the name is unlikely to alter their curiosity, he suggests.
The impact on the market is expected to be limited because of the exemption of the phrases “burger” and “sausage” from its scope, predicts Rahul Gotadki, associate vice president for research and consulting at analytics company Market Research Future.
However, the impact could be felt more in products containing, but not wholly composed of, meat substitutes, such as pizza or ready meals, suggests Euromonitor’s Rees. In the case of these products, it is more difficult to communicate to a consumer just what is being substituted without explicitly using banned terms.
“You have to get across what that experience is going to be like in terms of taste and texture without that shorthand.”
Ban could accelerate transition away from substitutes
Perhaps counter-intuitively, the ban may actually help the meat substitute sector, suggests Alice Pilkington, associate principal at analytics company Mintel. It may be “the jolt that the category needs”.
Association with ultra-processing has meant that products explicitly mimicking meat have been “tainted”, she suggests.
This has led to many who do consume meat-free products preferring those that aren’t meat mimics. Research suggests that 49% of German meat substitute eaters, for example, prefer those that don’t imitate meat to those that do.
The ban may force the sector to accelerate its focus on non-mimicry, Pilkington says. Products which don’t mimic meat have already seen success in the form of the popularity of tofu and tempeh.
“New product names, nutritional profiles and positioning can help brands shake off the substitute shackles and push the category’s self-imposed limits.”
Is the ban a sign of category success?
The ban may even be a sign of the category’s success, suggests Future Market Insights’ Choudhury.
“Plant-based is no longer being treated as a niche innovation space; it is now commercially relevant enough to trigger defensive responses around category language, consumer perception, and shelf identity.
“That alone tells us the sector has reached a level of visibility that incumbent interests take seriously.”
The restriction will make things harder for the sector, she suggests, but it will not stop growth.
Next steps for the sector
Of course, the sector must adapt to survive. What will it do next?
“Companies may increasingly focus on clear labelling, brand differentiation, and consumer education to communicate product attributes effectively”, says Market Research Future’s Gotadki.
For established brands, meanwhile, name recognition could mean that, despite restrictions on meat-related terms, their products are already known by the majority of consumers.
Consumers who already know and like brands such as Quorn, says Rees, will still buy their products, whatever name changes they are forced to undertake.
Furthermore, he predicts that the industry will respond to the ban creatively.
“I expect that there’ll be some creative responses to this around naming. The products that are called ‘plant-based chicken’ or ‘steaks’ now are not going to be called ‘plant-based soy protein slices.’
“There will still be efforts in making these appealing, not just visually, but also through naming.”
Overall, while the ban will no doubt prove challenging for the meat alternatives sector, there are many indications that these challenges may be limited in scope.
