A new disagreement has broken out in the long-standing regulatory war over what we eat and, even more importantly, how we are allowed to call it.
The Meatless Burgers: The Transatlantic Battle over Food and Intellectual Property
This week, the legendary Beatle Paul McCartney joined forces with a coalition of British MPs to lobby Brussels against a proposed ban on meat-related nomenclature for plant-based products.
The amendment, introduced by MEP Céline Imart (EPP, France), intends to prohibit terms such as “veggie burger” or “vegan sausage” within the EU. Even though a similar effort was rejected in 2020, the majority of MEPs voted in favour of the proposed rule. The argument used by the supporters of the ban is rooted in heritage and consumer clarity. They argue that a steak is a product of animal farming as old as the Neolithic era, and not just a shape. Opponents, including the UK delegation, respond that this is a solution in search of a problem. They state that European consumers are not really confused by the distinction between a beef patty and a plant-based one, which is supported by BEUC survey from 2020 that shows that consumer confusion is in fact low.
This situation is merely the tip of a much larger, more complex iceberg regarding intellectual property rights in the food sector. It shows a fundamental philosophical divergence between the continental Europe with its Geographical Indications system and Anglosphere with its trademark-based approach regarding how food is protected and traded. Understanding this is a critical component of international trade strategy, on top of being an interesting culinary discussion.
The Long and Winding Road (to Nomenclature)
To understand why the Europeans are so protective of terms like burger, one must understand how the EU treats specific foods. Unlike the Anglo-American model, which relies heavily on trademarks owned by private corporations, the European model relies on Geographical Indications, a system that links a product’s quality and reputation to its specific geographical origin.
Protected Designation of Origin represents the highest tier of protection. For a product to carry the PDO label (such as Parmigiano Reggiano or Champagne), every part of the production must take place in the specific region. The ingredients must be local, and the processes need to be strictly traditional. This is why champagne from California is legally impossible in the EU, where it would be sold just as sparkling wine.
Protected Geographical Indication (for food) and Geographical Indication of Spirit Drinks offer a bit more flexible framework. For PGI/GI status (such as Mortadella di Bologna or Irish Whiskey), at least one of the stages of production must take place in the region, but the raw ingredients can be sourced from other places.
The economic weight of these labels is immense, with the GI products selling at a 2.2x higher price on average. A study by the European Commission estimated the sales value of GI products at over €75 billion every year. These labels allow producers to charge a high premium that supports rural economies and prevent the standardisation of food systems.
The Friends Aren’t All Aboard
The problem appears when these European concepts collide with the common law approach, which is a part of the reason why EU and the United States failed to find a common language regarding the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. In the US and the UK, the system is more market-oriented. Terms like “Single Gloucester” or “Feta” are viewed by American regulators as generic terms. In the US view, “Parmesan” describes a style of hard, grated cheese, regardless of whether it was produced in Parma or Wisconsin.
The US protects only brands and trademarks, and not regions. The States view the EU’s expansion of GI protections as a form of protectionism under the veil of protecting heritage. According to the Americans, EU is attempting to re-establish some sort of control over common names that have been in the public domain for decades, which locks the US producers out of international markets or forces them to undergo costly rebranding (if we stick to the example of Parmesan, American producer would need to sell it in Europe as “Pamesello” or hard grated cheese). Similar renaming is already becoming a part of bilateral agreements, with the draft free trade agreement with Australia including the obligation for Australian producers.
The UK finds itself in a middle ground, generally aligning with the more liberal labelling standards, as the kingdom’s Competition and Market Authority sees expanded GI protections as anti-competitive. While the British government has not showed interest for a domestic ban, UK manufacturers exporting to the continent face a problem. They could soon be forced to run different production lines: one labelling products as “sausages” for the domestic and other markets, and another labelled something else for the EU, effectively importing the so-called red tape Brexit was promised to eliminate.
All You Need Is Law
The vote by the European Parliament to support the amendment does not immediately make the ban law. The proposal now enters the trilogue — a series of negotiations between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The Commission has historically been more hesitant of tampering with the innovation required for its own sustainability goals. The Council, on the other hand, is likely to be split. France and Italy, for instance, will probably support the ban to protect their gastronomic heritage, while some other countries might favour market liberalism.
To make things even more complicated, the ECJ issued a ruling last year where they stated that member states can’t unilaterally ban terms like “steak” for plant-based products unless they have established a specific legal name for it. This effectively means that the EU will have to come up with a regulation that would bypass this objection by the court.
Tomorrow Never Knows
The consequences are not clear, but the most immediate threat is economic friction. If the ban passes, companies like Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, and legacy brands like Linda McCartney Foods will need to redesign packaging for the EU market and spend more money and time for marketing purposes, such as educating consumers what their products are and how they are used. German company Rügenwalder Mill, specialised in meat alternatives, estimates that this change would cost them several million euros in the process.
The traditional meat producers hope to maintain the premium status of animal protein by gatekeeping terms like “steak”, preventing it from becoming a generic commodity. However, this strategy might carry a risk in the long run. By focusing on semantic protectionism rather than adapting to consumer demands, the industry could appear anti-innovation, which can drive away the youth that views food more through the lens of climate impact than the older generations that are more concerned with tradition.
As far as the international trade goes, this serves as a microcosm for trade tensions. The US government views these regulations as non-tariff trade barriers that go against the spirit of the TRIPS agreement and World Trade Organisation rules. As the EU will push to include these naming restrictions in future trade deals, it creates a diplomatic complication. The world is moving toward the balkanisation of food labelling, where a product will require a different identity depending on which side of the Atlantic (or the English Channel) it is marketed.
