In a week marked by pivotal decisions for Europe’s agri-food sector, the continent’s lawmakers and officials have set the stage for sweeping changes that could reshape food labeling and global trade. On September 8, 2025, the European Parliament’s agriculture committee voted to ban the use of meat-related terms such as "burger" and "sausage" on plant-based and cultivated meat products. Just a day later, the European Commission approved updated terms for the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement, a massive trade deal with four South American nations that could give rise to the world’s largest free-trade area.
The agriculture committee’s 33-to-10 vote, with five abstentions, marks a sharp reversal from the Parliament’s 2020 decision, which had rejected a ban on "meaty" terminology for vegan products. French lawmaker Celine Imart introduced the proposal in July as part of a review of the Common Market Organisation regulation. If the full Parliament approves the measure—likely in October—it will move on to trilogue negotiations involving the European Commission, the Council, and the Parliament.
The new amendment would reserve terms like "steak," "sausage," and "burger" exclusively for edible animal products, effectively excluding both plant-based and cell-cultured alternatives from using such descriptors. According to Green Queen, the proposal states: "The above-mentioned names shall not be used for any product other than the products referred to and shall exclude cell-cultured products." This move comes despite the European Court of Justice’s 2024 ruling that individual member states cannot prohibit these terms unless they first legally define meat products—a process so complex that only an EU-wide ban could truly enforce such restrictions.
Consumer confusion, the supposed rationale for the ban, is not borne out by the evidence. As Rafael Pinto, senior policy manager at the European Vegetarian Union, told Green Queen, "There is no data to support the argument that consumers are confused by plant-based burgers, sausages or any other alternative. Policymakers continue to bring up this non-issue, when it’s simply not a problem for citizens." Indeed, a 2020 study by the European Consumer Organisation found that 80% of respondents supported allowing plant-based meats to use traditional meat terms. A 2023 Smart Protein survey showed that only 9% of participants from nine member states didn’t recognize plant-based meat alternatives. The European Court of Justice’s advocate-general even suggested that banning familiar names might create more confusion, not less.
Yet, the move has gained traction amid mounting pressure from a dozen member states and, as many critics allege, powerful livestock industry lobbying. The committee’s decision is framed as a way to strengthen the position of traditional farmers in the food supply chain. But opponents warn that it could backfire. "Banning the use of these terms will hurt the farmers producing raw materials such as pea or soy, the companies innovating with new products and hinder consumer transparency with the use of unknown names," Pinto argued. The proposal also appears at odds with the EU’s stated goals of diversifying protein sources, promoting domestic plant-based production, and advancing bioeconomy initiatives. The Danish presidency of the EU Council, for example, is currently pushing for a common action plan to support plant-based foods, while the European Academies Science Advisory Council recently recommended greater support for meat alternatives to help address climate, health, and food security challenges.
As the proposal heads to a plenary vote, its fate remains uncertain. "Unfortunately, this time around with a more conservative Parliament, there’s a significant chance the ban goes through," Pinto cautioned. Other committees—covering internal market and consumer protection, environment and food safety, public health, and industry—are expected to weigh in, and advocates hope they will oppose the measure. The European Commission, meanwhile, has its own narrower proposal to restrict 29 meat-related terms on vegan product labels, but it’s unclear how this will interact with the Parliament’s broader amendment.
While the labeling debate rages, the European Commission has been forging ahead with trade agreements that could have equally far-reaching consequences for the region’s farmers and food producers. On September 9, 2025, the Commission approved updated terms for the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA), a deal with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. The agreement’s main goal is to remove most tariffs between the EU and Mercosur, including a 10% tariff on olive oil and duties on table olives, creating what would be the world’s largest free-trade area.
The deal is not without its detractors. France, Italy, and Poland—three of the EU’s largest food-producing nations—have voiced strong opposition, mainly over provisions affecting agriculture. To win over skeptics, the Commission introduced robust bilateral safeguards: permanent quotas will limit access for sensitive products like beef, poultry, and sugar, and a bilateral safeguard clause will allow the EU to act if imports from Mercosur threaten to cause "serious injury" to European sectors. According to the Commission, "The E.U. will grant very limited access to its market to imports of agri-food products." These protections will be enshrined in a legal act, making them binding and enforceable.
Another key feature of the agreement is the recognition of 344 geographical indications (GIs), including over 130 extra virgin olive oils, which will ban imitations and misleading labels. This is seen as a crucial win for European producers, who have long lobbied for stronger protections of their regional specialties. To further reassure farmers, the Commission has proposed a €6.3 billion crisis fund to shield them from potential market disruptions.
All food imports from Mercosur will be required to meet current EU safety standards, with reinforced sanitary and phytosanitary controls. The deal now faces a complex approval process: it needs a qualified majority in the European Council and a simple majority in the European Parliament, plus ratification by all 27 member states. This last stage is expected to be the most challenging, given the ongoing resistance from farming organizations and some national leaders.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has been unequivocal in his opposition: "Poland will oppose the Mercosur agreement because we want to show that we won’t give up when it comes to the interests of Polish agricultural producers." Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said Rome will consult with trade associations to assess the effectiveness of the safeguards before taking a final position. French trade minister Laurent Saint-Martin welcomed the additional protections but stressed that Paris would "examine the proposal in detail to ensure the effectiveness of the mechanism."
Despite the controversy, the agreement has its supporters. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the pact would deliver "lower tariffs and lower costs, contributing to economic growth and job creation." Agriculture commissioner Christophe Hansen called the deal "balanced for the E.U. agri-food sector," highlighting significant gains for spirits, wine, and dairy producers. The approval of the EU-Mercosur deal coincided with the Commission’s green light for the EU-Mexico Modernized Global Agreement, which will remove remaining tariffs on European agri-food exports, including cheese, poultry, pasta, apples, chocolate, and wine.
As Europe’s lawmakers and officials navigate these complex, high-stakes issues, the outcomes will have lasting effects on what ends up on European plates—and how it’s labeled. With votes and negotiations looming, both the future of plant-based food labeling and the fate of major trade deals hang in the balance.
