FOOD LABELLING: AUTHORIZED USE OF TERMS GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN FOR PRODUCTS OF PLANT ORIGIN TO DESIGNATE A PRODUCT CONTAINING PLANT PROTEINS
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that in the absence of a legal name, a Member State cannot prohibit the use of terms such as “steak” or “sausage” to designate products containing plant proteins.
The dispute concerned the conformity of French legislation prohibiting the use of designations traditionally associated with products of animal origin to name plant products with European Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.
In this case, a French consortium composed of associations and companies active in the vegetable protein market filed an appeal with the Council of State with a view to obtaining the annulment of a French decree relating to the use of certain names used to designate foodstuffs containing vegetable proteins. The entities concerned contested the prohibition issued by this decree on designating processed products containing vegetable proteins, with names such as “steak” or “sausage”, without and even with the addition of additional details. According to these entities, this decree disregarded several provisions of Regulation No 1169/2011 on the provision of consumer information on foodstuffs.
Having doubts about the conformity of the decree with European Regulation 1169/2011, the French Council of State decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the EU: Do the provisions of Articles 7 and 17 of Regulation No 1169/2011 on the provision of fair information to consumers on foodstuffs and the identification of their names allow a Member State to adopt national measures (in accordance with Article 38 of Regulation 1169/2011) regulating or prohibiting the use of names of products of animal origin from the butchery, delicatessen and fishmonger sectors to describe, market or promote foodstuffs containing plant proteins, which are likely to mislead the consumer?
In its ruling, the Court of Justice of the EU answered in the negative, considering that in accordance with Articles 7 (fair information practices) and 17 (name of the foodstuff) of Regulation 1169/2011, the information provided to consumers is sufficiently clear on the basis of a rebuttable presumption, even in the event of total replacement of the only component or ingredient that consumers expect to find in view of the name of the foodstuff concerned. The Court nevertheless adds with qualification that an EU Member State may, of course, adopt a legal name, by associating a specific expression with a given foodstuff. However, in the absence of a legal designation, a Member State cannot impose a general and abstract prohibition, under penalty of undermining the express harmonisation mentioned in Article 38 of European Regulation 1169/2011 prohibiting Member States from adopting national measures that may hinder the free movement of goods, unless authorised by European legislation.
Finally, the Court specifies that if a national authority considers that the practical arrangements for the sale or promotion of a foodstuff mislead the consumer, it may prosecute the operator concerned, by providing proof that the presumption has been rebutted.
