Advocate General opinion reversed: no meaty names ban for plant-based meat substitutes

Posted: October 7, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Advertising, alternative protein, Authors, clean meat, cultivated meat, Food, Information | Comments Off on Advocate General opinion reversed: no meaty names ban for plant-based meat substitutes

On 4 October 2024, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) provided its judgement in the case C-438/23 on the question whether the French national Decree limiting the use of meaty names for plant-based products is in compliance with the Food Information to Consumers Regulation (FIC Regulation). A month earlier, Advocate General (AG) Capeta rendered her opinion in this case, which we analyzed in this blogpost. While this opinion was not very promising for plant-based meat companies, the ECJ did not follow the AG and ruled that no meaty names ban can be implemented at national level. In this blogpost, we explain why, and what this all means for the alternative protein sector. For more background on the French Decree and the preliminary ruling by the ECJ, we refer to our previous blogpost on this topic.

Legal names can be set, but the French Decree does not contain legal names
The ECJ starts the motivation of its decision with acknowledging that the FIC Regulation leaves room to adopt legal names at Member State level where such do not exist at EU level. Where legal names are set, these cannot be used for products not complying with the specifications of that name. As an example, the ECJ refers to the term ‘meat’, which is legally defined as ‘the edible parts of animals’. A food not containing such parts can therefore not use the name ‘meat’, even if it is accompanied by specifying terms such as ‘vegetarian’. The same applies to milk and certain milk products, for which the legal name is laid down in the COM Regulation. Indeed, as we know well from the Tofutown decision, names such as ‘plant-based milk’ are a no-go.

According to AG Capeta, the French Decree under attack established legal names. This was done on the one hand by establishing a list of meaty names of which the use is prohibited for the designation of their plant-based counterpart (such as steak), and on the other hand by authorizing the use of certain meaty names for foods containing vegetable proteins provided that they do not exceed a certain proportion (such as cordon bleu (maximum 3,5 % vegetable protein)).

The ECJ ruled however differently. In the first place, it recalls that the French authorities themselves rejected the hypothesis that Decree No 2022-947 lays down a legal name. Therefore, the learnings from the Tofutown decision cannot be applied to the case at hand. In the second place, it also states that legal names must, according to the definition thereof in the FIC Regulation, be defined in order to designate a foodstuff. The adoption of a legal name thus means associating a specific expression with a given food. This is done by setting certain conditions, especially with regard to the composition of the food. The French Decree contains a measure prohibiting the use of certain meaty names, which are not legally defined by the Decree, for plant-based foods. This is not the same.

Use of customary and descriptive names fully harmonized
Given that there are no legal names for plant-based foods at EU level and neither in France as far as is known to the ECJ based on the file of the case, plant-based foods must be indicated by their customary name or descriptive name. Where a customary name is the accepted name of the food that does not need further explanation, a descriptive name must explain the main characteristics of the food.

Obviously, Member States cannot prevent plant-based food companies from complying with their obligation under the FIC Regulation to indicate the name of their products by using customary or descriptive names where no legal name exists. Having said that, customary and descriptive names must of course comply with the FIC Regulation and therefore not be misleading in the meaning of art. 7 thereof. As the ECJ indicates, consumers are not easily misled where the substitution of a component or ingredient of a (in this case animal-derived) food is clearly indicated in accordance with art. 7(1)(d) of, and Annex VI, Part A, point 4, to the FIC Regulation. The ECJ motivates that this set of rules also covers the situation where the composition of the food changes completely because the respective component or ingredient constitutes the only component or ingredient of the food (as is the case for e.g. a vegetarian steak). The ECJ therefore concludes that the protection of consumers from the risk of being misled by the use of meaty customary or descriptive names for foods that are fully or partly plant-based is fully harmonized by the FIC Regulation. Therefore, Member State cannot enact national measures regulating or prohibiting the use of such meaty names. The ECJ specifies that this includes that Member States cannot establish maximum permitted levels of vegetable proteins that can be contained in foods to be designated by meaty customary or descriptive names, either.

No distinction between domestic and imported products
Where the AG made in her opinion a distinction between rules covering domestic production and rules covering production abroad, this topic was no longer covered in the ECJ’s preliminary ruling. The question whether the French Decree could only apply to foods manufactured in its territory was initiated by the highest French administrative court (“Conseil d’Etat”), but became redundant since the ECJ came to the conclusion that national measures regulating or prohibiting the use of meaty names for plant-based products (other than by means of legal names) is not allowed in the first place.

We nevertheless conclude from the case that since the limitative legislation applying at a national level is not considered in conformity with Union legislation, this surely goes for national legislation applying similar restrictions on a Union level. This is justified by the fact that the ECJ recalls at the beginning of its decision the two paramount principles of Union legislation. In addition to consumer protection, this is also the smooth functioning of the internal market.

Outlook for the alternative protein sector a whole
Now the ECJ has given its interpretation of the FIC Regulation in response to the questions of the French referring court, it is now up to the latter to decide the dispute at national level in accordance with the ECJ’s preliminary ruling.

It should be noted that the ECJ’s ruling is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised. This means that the prohibition to enact national measures regulating or prohibiting the use of meaty names in the absence of legal names in principle also applies to other meat analogues such as cultivated meat and those produced by precision fermentation. Having said that, these products may face other challenges, such as the question whether such products can actually be called meat (for which they must be edible parts of animals as indicated above), and to what extent the production technique used must be indicated in accordance with art. 7(1)(a) of, and Annex VI, Part A, point 1 to, the FIC Regulation. We will keep you posted!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nomenclature for cultivated meat across Europe

Posted: October 31, 2022 | Author: | Filed under: Authors, clean meat, cultivated meat, Food, novel food | Comments Off on Nomenclature for cultivated meat across Europe

This blogpost covers the recent GFI report European messaging for cultivated meat (GFI Report) as recently presented during the International Scientific Conference on Cultivated Meat (ISCCM).The further aim is providing the relevant regulatory context. Market authorisation is often mentioned as the delaying factor for market access of cellular agriculture-based products. If you are interested to know how the names and narratives by which these products are designated fit into the EU regulatory framework, read on!

Accelerated developments in cultivated meat field

Developments in the field of cellular agriculture have been tremendous since the first market approval of Eat Just’s hybrid cultivated chicken product in Singapore at the end of 2020. To name just a few:

  • September 2021: Singapore Food Authority grants CMO Esco Aster a license to manufacture cultivated meat for commercial production. Meanwhile, several cultivated meat companies have concluded partnerships with Esco Aster for production purposes.
  • October 2021: US Dept. of Agriculture announces an award of USD 10 million to Tufts University to set up a National Institute for Cellular Agriculture;
  • October 2021: The Israeli Innovation Authority announces to invest an amount equalling USD 69 to establish four new public-private consortia, including one targeting cultivated meat;
  • November 2021: opening of Upside Food’s 53.000 square foot production facility for cultivated meat;
  • April 2022: The Dutch government agrees to invest through its National Growth Funds an amount of € 60 million to boost the formation of an ecosystem around cellular agriculture, representing the largest public funding in this field globally so far;
  • October 2022: Mosa Meat announces construction of its 77 square cultivated meat campus.
  • Upcoming event in November 2022: FAO Expert consultation in Singapore for gathering scientific advice on cell-based food products and food safety considerations.

For a comprehensive overview of the developments in the cultivated meat market, reference is made to GFI’s 2021 State of the Industry Report on Cultivated Meat and Seafood. This report also points out that investments in cultivated meat companies have grown from USD 420 million in 2020 to USD 1,8 billion in 2021. The sector clearly grows in interest and substance.

Market authorisation: where to start?

Quite a few of the cellular agriculture companies have their origin in the EU and in the UK. During the latest editions of KET Conference, the New Food Conference and the ISCCM, I witnessed however that most of them intend obtaining market approval in Singapore first, then in the United States of America and only afterwards in the European Union. Why is that? And it is justified based on the current EU regulatory framework?

EU: attractive but very diverse market

The European Union represents a market of more than 440 million consumers and thereby is a bigger market than for example the United States, counting currently over 330 million inhabitants. Based on this headcount alone it makes sense for each serious food business operator to consider the EU market for the launch of a new product. At the same time, the European Union consists of 27 Member States having their own cultural and culinary habits. This is exactly what is pointed out in the GFI Report. These varied backgrounds mostly require dedicated product communication. To a certain extent, some overlap in effective product communication in the four countries in which the research took place, was found as well.

Product communication vs. marketing

For clarity, there is a thin line between marketing and product communication, especially for pre-commercial companies that need to raise funds to get their product to the market. This was recognized by David Kay from Upside Foods in his ProVeg presentation, which you can watch here (starting at 26th minute). For the time being all cultivated meat companies, except perhaps East Just, are pre-commercial companies. Product communication means providing factual understandable information to the targeted public. Marketing means the direct or indirect recommendation of goods, services and/or concepts by on behalf of an advertiser, whether or not using third parties. The purpose of the GFI report is to develop positive, persuasive nomenclature and messaging for cultivated meat for each language and cultural context. In my view, the report thereby operates somewhere in the middle between product communication and marketing.

Rationale for common denominator

As recently acknowledged by the FAO, internationally harmonized terms to designate cultivated meat would be helpful to facilitate understanding worldwide:

“Cell-based food products are also referred to as “cultured” or “cultivated” followed by the name of the commodity, such as meat, chicken or fish while the process can also be called “cellular agriculture”. Given the various terminology in use for this technology, internationally harmonized terms for the food products and production processes would facilitate understanding at global level.”

Overlap in product communication

Back to the research performed by GFI. The very reason for the GFI Report is the current lack of consensus within the sector on the best nomenclatures and narratives to use. Negative framing of cultivated meat (which in some EU countries is already a reality) could prevent consumer acceptance of these products. GFI therefore tested which names and narratives worked well in each of France, Italy, Spain and Germany. Regarding the name, the GFI Report establishes that terms that loosely translate to “cultivated meat” are understood in all these countries and have a positive rather than a negative connotation. This comes down to “viande cultivée” / “carne coltivata” / “carne cultivada” / “kultiviertes Fleisch” or “Kulturfleisch”. As to the accompanying narratives, overall findings are that communication on cultivated meat should not be too technical. For example, reference to “cells” and “bioreactors” should generally be avoided, whereas analogies construed with existing food practices, such as the brewing of beer, work well.

Particularities for France, Italy, Spain and Germany

The research however also showed diverging results in the countries involved, both as regards the familiarity and the appreciation of cultivated meat. In France for instance, the terms “cells” and “bioreactor” are considered too reminiscent of a laboratory and too far removed from the language of food. In Italy “bioreactor” is even considered reminiscent of nuclear energy. In Spain, the terms “cells” and “bioreactors” are considered too scientific. In Germany on the other hand, the reference to “cells” is interpreted in an entirely different way. In this country, stating that cultivated meat stems from animal cells is interpreted that it tastes like conventional meat. In view of the market potential, in France 33% of the respondents indicate they would buy this food, whereas in Germany, Italy and Spain, these percentages are 57%, 55% and 65% respectively.

Do we have any examples from practice?

In an interview broadcasted on French television BFM Business on 5 October 2022, Nicolas Morin-Forest (NMF) delivers a fairly inspiring message on the cultivated foie gras of Gourmey. Whereas the TV station consistently refers to “viande synthèse”, NMF speaks of “viande culture” and stresses this is not a plant-based product (“Ce n’est pas du végétal”). Instead, he states, Gourmey delivers real animal protein with the same quality as animal protein in terms of taste (“C’est de la vraie protéine animale avec toutes les qualités gustatives des proteines animales”). He also mentions that with this product, it is no longer necessary to conclude any compromises; it associates culinary delight with the so-called protein transition (“Plus de compromis: le plaisir est au centre de l’assiette; au centre aussi de la transition alimentaire”). He finally points out that France can play a fundamental role in this protein transition, specifically based on its culinary foodprint and gastronomic history (“La France a un rôle fondamentale à jouer par notre patrimoine culinaire, par notre histoire gastronomique”).

Why are names and narratives of relevance for market authorisation?

The four researched countries are all important EU Member States, both in terms of head count and political influence. Germany is very influential at EU level and has the largest population of any EU country. Spain is reported to have strong influence over EU policy as well and has the highest meat intake in the EU. Both France and Italy have significant influence over EU agricultural policy. However, these latter two are the countries where we have seen the most hostile approach to non-conventional meat. In France for instance, there is ongoing litigation before the Conseil d’Etat concerning the prohibition of meaty names for non-conventional and alternative meat products.

Legal basis EU authorisation procedure

The position taken by all four countries will be of relevance during the authorisation procedure of cultivated meat in the EU. Cultivated meat – if produced without genetic modification – is regulated under the EU Novel Food Regulation. Contrary to legislation in Singapore (of very recent date) and in the US (still to be further shaped), this Regulation has already been in place since 1997 and was updated in 2018. The system is ready to receive applications when the companies are ready, too. Extensive EFSA guidance on the preparation of a Novel Food application is available.

Dynamics at the PAFF Committee

After EFSA makes available its safety evaluation regarding an application for authorisation of a cultivated meat product, the European Commission submits a draft implementing act to the PAFF Committee. This committee consists of representatives of each Member State and subsequently provides by qualified majority (i) a positive opinion, (ii) a negative opinion or (iii) no opinion at all.  “Qualified majority” here means that 55% of the Member States vote in favour, representing at least 65 % of the EU population. The dynamics of this decision making procedure have been described in detail in the article Meat 3.0 – How Cultured Meat is Making its Way to the Market, which also provides for a flow chart at the end. In case of a negative opinion, one of the options is to escalate to the so-called Appeal Committee. In case of a negative opinion of the Appeal Committee, the EC shall not render an implementing act. In plain language: the application for authorisation of the cultivated meat product at stake will in such case be rejected.

Conclusion

Based on the above, It is quite easy to make the calculation that if for instance the representatives in the PAFF Committee from Germany (over 80 million inhabitants) or France (over 65 million inhabitants) do not vote in favour of an  application for authorisation of a cultivated meat product, it will be difficult to reach the 65% threshold. Agreement on the name of product, understanding of the technology behind it, as well as the various benefits it could bring is therefore expected to be key for the evaluation procedure by the PAFF Committee. When these products make it to the EU market, they will be subject to the applicable legislation on food information and marketing. Until that time, it is of the essence that comprehensive product information reaches the relevant stake holders. It follows from the GFI Report that chefs and dieticians are best placed to deliver this message. In turn, the cultivated meat companies are in the position to provide them with relevant information. I can only encourage them to do so, if only to expedite market access in the EU.

————————-

Additional useful sources linked to this topic are ProVeg’s reports Communicating about cultured meat and The role of imagery in consumer perceptions of cultured meat (the latter targeting the UK specifically), each published in October 20222 and to be downloaded here.

————————

Foto credit: BioTech Foods

 

 

Timmers Promotions