Switzerland's Federal Court has ruled against using animal-related terms for vegan products, impacting food manufacturers and marking a significant precedent in food labeling regulations.
"A majority of the judges argued that food products not made from animal flesh should not bear the name of an animal species."
"The underlying principle is simple, if technical: a plant-based patty cannot be labelled a 'beef steak'."
Switzerland's highest court, the Federal Court, has issued a landmark ruling that prohibits plant-based meat alternatives from being labeled with animal-related names. The decision, which sided with the federal government in a case against Zurich-based producer Planted Foods, sets a significant precedent for food labeling regulations within the country. This move forces a re-evaluation of marketing and branding strategies for the burgeoning plant-based food industry in Switzerland.
The court's judgment specifically bans names that directly refer to animals, such as 'vegan pork,' 'plant-based chicken,' or descriptive phrases like 'like chicken.' The ruling found these terms to be potentially misleading for consumers. However, the court clarified that descriptors related to preparation methods or form—such as 'steak,' 'sausage,' 'slice,' or 'minced'—remain permissible. This distinction allows for names like 'cereal slices' or 'lentil steak,' provided they do not use the name of an animal species.
This Federal Court decision overturns a previous verdict from Zurich’s Administrative Court, which had initially rejected the concerns of the cantonal food lab and permitted the use of animal-related names. The federal judges based their final decision in part on existing EU legislation and case law, reflecting Switzerland's 2017 overhaul of its food laws to align more closely with European standards. As a majority of judges argued, 'food products not made from animal flesh should not bear the name of an animal species,' establishing a clear, technically-grounded principle.
A key driver of the ruling was the principle of consumer protection. The court recognized that the contested labels serve a distinct marketing function. One judge noted that these names are designed to appeal not just to vegans but also to 'flexitarians or the curious, suggesting equivalence with real meat.' By banning these labels, the court aims to prevent potential confusion among consumers and ensure that product descriptions accurately reflect their contents, reinforcing transparency in the food market.
The ruling requires immediate action from companies like Planted Foods, which must now rename several of their products to comply with the new regulations. This legal precedent will have a ripple effect across the entire Swiss plant-based sector, forcing manufacturers to innovate in their branding and marketing. While a challenge for existing products, it also presents an opportunity for companies to develop creative and clear labeling that builds consumer trust and establishes a distinct market identity separate from traditional meat products.