In recent years, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter the “CJEU“) has issued a number of judgments that have had a significant impact on food labelling practices within the European Union. These rulings reflect the CJEU’s ongoing effort to strike a balance between protecting consumers against misleading or deceptive food labelling and allowing manufacturers a degree of creativity in the way they present their products.
Following these decisions, the Ministry of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority and the State Veterinary Administration, issued an updated opinion[1] on the labelling of plant-based foods, effective as of 1 July 2025. In this article, we would like to present the most relevant decisions relating to the labelling of plant-based alternatives to animal-based foods.
Rules on the use of animal-related names for plant-based foods under the CJEU judgment
On 4 October 2024, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Case C-438/23[2], Protéines France, concerning a French decree adopted in 2022. The decree imposed a general ban on the use of names associated with meat, charcuterie, or fish products for foods composed of plant proteins. The prohibition also applied even when the name was accompanied by information clarifying the plant-based nature of the product, such as “soy sausage”. The decree even introduced thresholds for the percentage of plant proteins, above which certain animal-related names could not be used. Notably, the measure did not apply to products originating from other Member States or third countries, raising questions about its compatibility with EU law.
The CJEU recalled that Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011[3] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers (hereinafter the “Regulation 1169“) establishes a clear hierarchy of food names: a legal name, if any; otherwise the customary name; and, in the absence of both, a descriptive name.
- A legal name is a name laid down by EU law or, where applicable, by national legislation of a Member State.
- A customary name is not defined by legislation but is generally accepted by consumers as the name of a given food without requiring further explanation.
- A descriptive name is a name that describes the food or sufficiently characterises its nature, composition, or method of production.
Point 4 of Part A of Annex VI to Regulation 1169 stipulates that where a food has had a component or ingredient that consumers would normally expect to be present replaced by another component or ingredient, the labelling must clearly indicate the substitute component or ingredient, placed in close proximity to the product’s name and in sufficiently prominent lettering.
Accordingly, the name of a food product must not be misleading to consumers, particularly as to the food’s essential characteristics, such as its nature and composition. Where standard ingredients are replaced by others, this fact must be explicitly stated in direct connection with the product name. According to the CJEU, these requirements constitute full harmonisation, meaning that Member States may not adopt national measures imposing general prohibitions on the use of customary or descriptive names, nor may they set thresholds that would effectively prevent their use.
In its judgment, the CJEU held that the French decree in question did not establish legal names but instead prohibited the use of certain customary and descriptive names for foods based on plant proteins. Under Regulation 1169, however, Member States are not permitted to regulate customary and descriptive names, as given their very definition, their scope cannot be limited by national authorities.
CJEU also emphasised that EU law creates a rebuttable presumption that where a manufacturer complies with all obligations to provide clear and truthful information, the consumer is not misled.
National authorities may only intervene in individual cases where it is demonstrated that the specific labelling actually misleads consumers. Therefore, a general and preventive ban such as that adopted by France is, according to the CJEU, incompatible with EU law.
Member States, therefore, may not adopt national measures establishing a specific percentage of plant proteins below which the use of other than legal names would be permitted. They may, however, impose sanctions for breaches of directly harmonised obligations and address individual cases of misleading labelling.
Update of the Ministry of Agriculture’s opinion in response to the Protéines France judgment
Following the CJEU judgment in Case C-438/23, Protéines France, of 4 October 2024, the Ministry of Agriculture issued, on 1 July 2025, an updated opinion on the labelling of plant-based foods using names associated with animal products (hereinafter the “Opinion“). The update provides primarily interpretative guidance on the use of legal, customary, and descriptive names on food products, setting out the following principles.
A legal name may be used only for foods that meet the specific properties or composition corresponding to the legally defined characteristics of that food. As mentioned above, legal names are laid down in EU legislation or in Czech commodity decrees. Examples of improper use for plant-based products include “plant pâté” or “pea cracklings”. Both pâté and cracklings are legal names and, therefore, may not be used for foods that do not possess the prescribed characteristics, even if the name is supplemented by a clarifying term such as “plant-based”, “pea”, or similar.
Customary names are not defined in legislation as legal names. These include, for example, “burger”, “meatloaf”, “schnitzel”, and many others. Where an ingredient that consumers would normally expect is replaced by another (for instance, milk with soy, meat with mushrooms, etc.), this information must appear in close proximity to the customary name and must not mislead the consumer as to the product’s composition. The full name of the product could therefore be “portobello burger” or “mushroom schnitzel”.
A descriptive name provides a sufficiently clear description of the food or its intended use to allow consumers to recognise its true nature and distinguish it from other similar products. Appropriate examples of descriptive names include “oat drink” or “soy slices with chicken flavour”.
The Supreme Administrative Court (hereinafter the “SAC”) also provided interpretation concerning the use of descriptive names in its judgment No 4 As 134/2023[4] of 15 March 2024. The SAC considered situations where descriptive names for foods are composed of the name of an animal-based product, the term “alternative”, and additional information specifying the product’s nature.
The SAC held that product names used by the claimant such as “Soy Alternative to Cream Smooth 17%” and labels reading “I am not allowed to be called and I am not cream/yoghurt/kefir/milk/mayonnaise, but you may call me that” comply with the requirements laid down by EU legislation to ensure that food labelling remains clear, comprehensible, and not misleading to consumers.
According to the SAC, such designations constitute an approximation, which is not inconsistent with EU requirements. Moreover, from the overall context of the labelling, it is evident that the products are not of animal origin. The risk that consumers would perceive them as animal-based is therefore minimal and conversely, the use of the term “alternative“ gives consumers a clear indication of which animal-based product the plant-based food resembles.
Practical impact of the Protéines France judgment for plant-based food producers
Member States cannot impose a blanket prohibition on the use of names of animal-based products for plant-based foods, unless such terms are expressly reserved by law (i.e., where a specific legal name exists). When a manufacturer chooses to use such a term, it must be supplemented by a clarification such as “plant-based alternative” or another specification making it clear that the product is of plant origin and not of animal origin. This gives manufacturers a certain amount of freedom to be creative in marketing their plant-based products. Even so, this freedom must be exercised with a great deal of caution.
Designations “milk“ and “cheese“ remain reserved for animal products
In an earlier but equally important judgment, Case C-422/16[5], TofuTown, of 14 June 2017, the CJEU considered whether names reserved for milk and dairy products could also be used for purely plant-based foods. The German company TofuTown marketed vegan food products under names such as “tofu butter”, “vegan cheese” or “RiceSpray Cream”. The Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V., German Association of Social Competition, brought an action against the company, arguing that such labelling violates EU law, specifically Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013[6] of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (hereinafter the “Regulation 1308“), which in Annex VII reserves the terms “milk”, “cheese”, “butter”, “yoghurt” and others exclusively for products of animal origin.
The CJEU confirmed that under EU law, the term “milk” is defined solely as the secretion of mammary glands of mammals, and that the names listed in Annex VII to Regulation 1308 (e.g. “butter”, “cheese”, “yoghurt”) may only be used for genuine dairy products. This rule applies even when the name is accompanied by an explanatory term such as “soy milk” or “tofu butter”. The only exceptions concern products for which the use of such a name is historically and traditionally established and has been expressly authorised by the European Commission (for example “cocoa butter”, “coconut milk”, “peanut butter”). The Czech Republic has not listed any such exceptions to date.
The CJEU therefore concluded that producers of plant-based alternatives may not use protected dairy designations, even if supplemented with an explanatory reference to their plant-based nature.
Conclusion
The case law of the CJEU and subsequent actions by national authorities reveal a clear trend, the protection of consumers against misleading labelling remains the priority, while a certain scope for creativity in food labelling continues to exist, provided that the labelling remains clear and truthful.
When labelling plant-based products, manufacturers must pay particular attention to whether the chosen name falls within the category of a legal, customary or descriptive name.
[1] Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce | Stanovisko MZe (SZPI a SVS) ve věci označování rostlinných potravin názvy živočišných produktů ke dni 1. 2. 2023
[2]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=5504BB385A9902A7F91C55887CDE02C0?text=&docid=290706&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=23060621
[3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R1169
[4] https://vyhledavac.nssoud.cz/DokumentOriginal/Html/719537
[5]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=191704&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=23079011
[6] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32013R1308
Mgr. Jakub Málek, managing partner – malek@plegal.cz
Mgr. Kateřina Musilová, junior lawyer – musilova@plegal.cz