Does the EU meat terms ban affect seafood summary
- EU ban restricts meat terms for most non-meat products
- Seafood and fish products are explicitly excluded from the regulation
- Plant based items like tofu or cauliflower steaks lose naming rights
- Restaurants may need to change menus depending on national enforcement
- Future exceptions remain possible through European Commission delegated act processes
The EU earlier this month agreed to ban meat-related terms for non-meat products. Thirty-one terms were covered by the ban; while ‘burger’ and ‘sausage’ were exempt, ‘liver’ and ‘steak’, were added to its scope at the last minute.
The ban prohibits products which are not composed of meat from bearing terms traditionally associated with meat. However, this category is not exclusively made up of meat-free analogues: other, older products have also borne such names.
How does the ban impact food beyond meat alternatives?
The prohibition of the word ‘steak’ for products that are not meat begs the question: what about other kinds of steaks, such as tuna steak?
It turns out that the fish and seafood industry has nothing to worry about.
The ban deliberately excludes products from fisheries or aquaculture from its scope, explains Katia Merten-Lentz, partner at Food Law Science and Partners.
It explicitly states that it aims to “avoid unintended impacts on other sectors such as fisheries and aquaculture while addressing other exceptions such as non-meat products with traditional use of meat terms for their description”.
However, other ‘steaks’ are not so lucky. Such an exemption does not apply to tofu steak or cauliflower steak, says Merten-Lentz.
In fact, apart from fish and seafood, there are no exceptions. The ban “prohibits the use of almost all terms traditionally associated with meat for any product that is not meat.”
The proposal does, however, allow the European Commission to introduce further exceptions through delegated acts, which are adopted after consultation with expert groups and could come into play in the future.
Impact of the regulation for restaurants
It’s clear that the ban will impact retail products – but what about restaurant menus?
The prohibition affects “all stages of marketing”, stressed Merten-Lentz. This means, in theory, not just retail or industrial sales but also how dishes are described in restaurants.
“As a result, restaurants could also be affected if they use meat-related terms for dishes that are not made from meat.”
Nevertheless, the eventual impact on restaurants may depend on how the regulation is interpreted and implemented by national authorities in member states.
Culinary vs animal-specific: The debate goes on
Meat alternatives are the core of the ban, according to Merten-Lentz. However, its scope is wide.
“The amendment has been written in a broader way: it prohibits the use of almost all terms traditionally associated with meat for any product that is not meat, the only exception being fisheries products.”
Despite the ban being agreed, the debate still rages over the meaning of certain meat-related terms, such as ‘steak’ and ‘burger’, and whether they are culinary descriptions or relate specifically to an animal. While ‘burger’ has escaped the ban, ‘steak’ remains within the regulation’s scope.
Much of the future debate around these terms, Merten-Lentz suggests, will focus on how the consumer interprets them.
