__By the end of the year, Switzerland’s highest court will rule on whether meat alternatives manufactured in Switzerland can continue to be labelled as vegan “chicken” or “pork”. The decision would set a precedent not only in Switzerland but also in Europe.__
Planted Foods, Switzerland’s largest start-up producing meat substitutes, could be ordered to remove the terms “chicken” and “pork” from the labels on its pea-based products. This is despite a ruling by the Zurich administrative court that deems the use of animal meat names on the packaging of plant-based foods is not misleading for consumers as long as they are clearly labelled as “vegan”.
Planted Foods was founded in Kemptthal, near Zurich, in 2019 and has since then been selling its products in several European countries, including Germany, Austria and France. The Zurich Cantonal Laboratory, which oversees food and water safety in the canton, had objected to Planted’s labelling and asked it to refrain from using product names such as “planted.chicken” or “Güggeli” (a Swiss-German term for chicken). Planted rejected the request before the Zurich court, which decided in November 2022 in favour of the start-up.
The case is now moving to federal court after Swiss authorities refused to accept the cantonal ruling. Last month, the Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA), which also deals with health issues, appealed to the Federal Court, Switzerland’s highest legal authority. It is expected to rule on the case by the end of the year.
If the court rules against the start-up, Switzerland could become the first country in Europe to ban the use of animal meat names in connection with plant-based products.
__No legal clarity__
Current legislation in Switzerland does not provide clarity on the correct naming of plant-based foods. “The law is very abstract and general. The products are not regulated in detail,” said Fabio Versolatto, an intellectual property lawyer at Rentsch Partner in Zurich. In fact, the Federal Act on Foodstuffs states that “substitutes and imitations must be characterised and advertised in such a way that the consumer can recognise the type of foodstuff and distinguish it from products with which it could be confused”.
This is leading to different legal interpretations. The judges of the Zurich administrative court examined whether the labelling “like chicken” or “like pork” on Planted’s product was misleading but decided in favour of the company because the plant-based origin was also clearly labelled.
Such designations serve to provide sufficient and clear information on the use of the products, just as required by food law, the 2022 ruling stated. According to the cantonal court, an alternative designation, such as “plant-based food made from pea protein”, would make it difficult for the public to understand that the product is a meat substitute.
That also would not be in the spirit of Planted Foods. “It is important that consumers know exactly how to use new products like ours and how to easily integrate them into their daily lives: the animal descriptions serve this purpose,” a company spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to SWI swissinfo.ch.
Meanwhile, the FDHA argues that the labelling of vegan meat substitutes, like all other food products, should allow consumers to identify the type of food and not confuse it with others. The department told SWI swissinfo.ch that it interprets the provisions of food legislation on protection against deception differently than the cantonal court.
According to lawyer Versolatto, the ongoing proceedings are a way for the Swiss courts to provide legal clarity in the rather new but fast-growing area of plant-based foods. “The Federal Court decision will set a precedent and give more certainty to Swiss companies producing plant-based alternatives,” he said.
__Switzerland vs Europe__
Should the Federal Court decide to ban the use of animal meat names on Planted’s labels, it would go against European legislation, which allows meat-related mentions on packaging.
France and Belgium already tried to push back on European rules in 2020 when it banned names such as “vegetable steak” and “vegetable chicken pieces”, but both countries have yet to implement national regulations. Switzerland could outpace its neighbours and become the first country in Europe to ban the use of such labels if the court decides accordingly.
The issue remains controversial. Diego Moretti, who studies human nutrition at the Swiss Distance University of Applied Sciences (FFHS), thinks it is not entirely correct to call something chicken if it isn’t: “Vegetable chicken is not entirely equivalent to real chicken from a nutritional point of view.” However, Moretti added that the risk of the two products being confused is very small.
Versolatto, on the other hand, says that it is reasonable from a consumer protection perspective to raise the issue of denomination. “The fear is that some people, especially older people who do not know English, may not realise that these are alternatives to meat,” he said.
But his colleague Janine Anderegg, a food science expert and patent engineer at the Zurich law firm, thinks that consumers are able to distinguish between plant and animal foods because there are now so many alternatives available.
“There are hundreds more plant-based products on supermarket shelves today than there were ten years ago,” said Anderegg. The fact that plant-based alternatives are now competing with meat products weighs heavily on the discussion, she added: “Pressure from the meat industry in trying to protect its own name cannot be excluded.”
> Meanwhile, the FDHA argues that the labelling of vegan meat substitutes, like all other food products, should allow consumers to identify the type of food and not confuse it with others.
Seems like non-issue to me.
I reckon virtually nobody has ever mistaken a vegan chicken for the real thing. It usually says *vegan* all over the packaging.
This is just stupid. Katzenzungen are not made of cats either for example but still called Katzenzungen. And yeah, the meat industry has a lot of influence in this country which should not be the case.
The only people buying the wrong products are the ones that never read the ingredient list.
For new products with names not already well-established in language use, names should not be misleading or confusing like that. Neither chicken nor pork can be vegan, and such products don’t contain any of it.
Personally, I still think if you cannot differentiate between the products it’s on you. I always look closely at what I buy.
“Fleischkäse” is no cheese, “Lyoner” doesn’t come from Lyon, “Bärentatzen” are cookies, not actual bear’s paws… hell it even says “Beer” on Feldschlösschen bottles… don’t see why it should be an issue in this specific case.
A vegan chicken is just a chicken raised on vegan food. No?
It’s not chicken.
This is so stupid lol
Ah the good old “could mislead customers” argument. I really hope the meat lobby doesn’t get through with this.
the only policy that should be created is that vegan products are not allowed to be mixed with meat products (which is already the case). It is currently impossible to mix up vegan an meat products.
I think it’s okay to use these terms because it would just look weird having “flavored pea mush” it’s like saying chicken nuggets would be “cooked chicken corpse paste”
But my issue is seeing things that were always their own food being labeled as vegan with some heavily green washed packaging.
Like falafels in Migros are now in the Vegan aisle.. at this point put all the vegetables there.
Potatoes are vegan but you don’t see them with packaging like “Go vegan life! 🥬” or “great for your health 🫶🏻”
Vegan doesn’t mean healthy. I’ve got an issue with that and it’s packaging.
I’ve bought a sauce that had “MAYO” written on it as a huge label, it was vegan.. tiny vegan leaf on the top right that’s it. At this point why say Mayo? It’s a sauce, no need to say that, just call it Hot sauce or whatever.
Or the premade sandwiches at Migros. I hate when it’s simply called “Chicken sandwich” like at least say “Vegan chicken sandwich” I don’t mind chicken being used there. It’s intentionally misleading, and with green packaging next to actual sandwiches with meat and similar packaging.
Anyway TL:DR I’ve got an issue with misleading packaging that promotes a false sense of healthy and fresh foods, and the shameless attempts to hide the fact is vegan when there’s no shame in it being vegan!
Extra: if you are vegan, please us Yuka to scan the bar codes of your meat alternatives, you’d be surprised by the amount that is saturated in sugars, salts and even dangerous additives..
Dandelions are sadly not made of lion teeth. The true crime? Not made of any feline teeth (yet) known to man
I guess the world is holding its breath with switzerland taking a confident leadership role in matters of highest importance.
I could care less what the so-called highest court in the land says. If it’s not chicken, then it can’t be called chicken.
While superficially it is made out to be about consumer confusion, it is really about putting up soft-barriers to keep people from buying meat substitutes.
Imagine:
You go into a store, you still eat meat but want to reduce your reliance on it, so you enter the store with the idea that you want to make chicken tika massala, but today, you want to use a plant based option. You stand in front of the plant based options, but none tell you which is chicken like. This is too complicated to pick the right one, you leave the plant based isle and buy real chicken.
These soft barriers are everywhere. Go to toppreise.ch, filter by brands. Notice how only a few brands are visible before you extend the menu? Often, brands pay sites money so they are visible before the soft-barrier gets in the way.
Online newspapers, are you more likely to read an article of an ad financed paper where there’s no barrier to entry, or more likely to read one where you have to register, log-in and/or pay? It’s the ad financed one. It’s also why we all have to pay for our public-broadcaster in advance and when we switch on the TV it’s just there, no further barriers to entry. Or why the advertising industry and print publishers fought for the public-broadcaster to show ads – ads put up barriers in your viewing experience and you are more likely to switch off (this is unlike in print where you can just ignore ads, they don’t slow down your reading).
[Also, don’t forget that Proviande, to this day, receives taxpayer millions to further extend Swiss meat consumption.]
It’s not lamb, it’s H’amb!
They should just make two symbols that are universal across Europe. “Contains no Meat” and “Contains no Animal Products”
Imagine meat producers creating this fancy product called “almost falafel”, which in fact is a meatball that tastes a bit like falafel, and they place it next to the real falafels.
Well that’s just wack. I have no problem with vegan alternatives being labelled as specific meat alternatives. At worst a few consumers eat food derived from peas or tofu or something – that’s really not a big deal, the other way around could be.
I have accidently bought vegan chicken before – didn’t even notice until I made it, and everything was fine.
I see no reason we should make marketing vegan alternatives harder.
There were many times I almost accidently bought some fake meat / product, like a can of “chili con carne beef”. I was in a call while shopping and was less thorogh reading the packaging. Later i realised the beef word is scratched out intentionally (was printed like that) and some vegan logo somewhere else on the can when i rotated it and a “best alternative to meat” blabla.
They really should not market it like that, max write in small letters that the taste intends to mimic xy meat product.
Also i dont care if someone is soo much against meat, would want to eat a fake ham burger or fake chicken.
What comes next, an aluminium case laptop with an apple-like logo, with a small “*not that apple, but this is a pc a best alternative to a mac” disclaimer?
I do buy sometimes soy / hummus etc, or even a mcplant – for the specific taste. so i have no issue with those products. But don’t try to mislead me false labels..
This is fun…
What about “Not Milk”? Is that misleading? Will people believe it’s actually milk? There is a picture of a crossed out cow on the box!
And you can buy animal-free dairy ice cream. No cows involved but it _must_ be labelled as dairy by law, as it is the same protein and if you are allergic to it, you cannot drink it.
Hard to care about any argument that is so transparently “I don’t want competition with meat products”.
No one on this planet believes this is about consumer protection, if anything… The exact opposite
Id like to see a compromise where they can continue to use the words of meats they dont contain but they have to call it vegan chicken *flavoured* product rather than simply vegan chicken.
Farmers /meat/diary libby in switzerland are way to powerful. Cannt have an almond milk because there is no dairy in it. But fruit yoghurt without any actual fruit is fine
27 comments
__By the end of the year, Switzerland’s highest court will rule on whether meat alternatives manufactured in Switzerland can continue to be labelled as vegan “chicken” or “pork”. The decision would set a precedent not only in Switzerland but also in Europe.__
Planted Foods, Switzerland’s largest start-up producing meat substitutes, could be ordered to remove the terms “chicken” and “pork” from the labels on its pea-based products. This is despite a ruling by the Zurich administrative court that deems the use of animal meat names on the packaging of plant-based foods is not misleading for consumers as long as they are clearly labelled as “vegan”.
Planted Foods was founded in Kemptthal, near Zurich, in 2019 and has since then been selling its products in several European countries, including Germany, Austria and France. The Zurich Cantonal Laboratory, which oversees food and water safety in the canton, had objected to Planted’s labelling and asked it to refrain from using product names such as “planted.chicken” or “Güggeli” (a Swiss-German term for chicken). Planted rejected the request before the Zurich court, which decided in November 2022 in favour of the start-up.
The case is now moving to federal court after Swiss authorities refused to accept the cantonal ruling. Last month, the Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA), which also deals with health issues, appealed to the Federal Court, Switzerland’s highest legal authority. It is expected to rule on the case by the end of the year.
If the court rules against the start-up, Switzerland could become the first country in Europe to ban the use of animal meat names in connection with plant-based products.
__No legal clarity__
Current legislation in Switzerland does not provide clarity on the correct naming of plant-based foods. “The law is very abstract and general. The products are not regulated in detail,” said Fabio Versolatto, an intellectual property lawyer at Rentsch Partner in Zurich. In fact, the Federal Act on Foodstuffs states that “substitutes and imitations must be characterised and advertised in such a way that the consumer can recognise the type of foodstuff and distinguish it from products with which it could be confused”.
This is leading to different legal interpretations. The judges of the Zurich administrative court examined whether the labelling “like chicken” or “like pork” on Planted’s product was misleading but decided in favour of the company because the plant-based origin was also clearly labelled.
Such designations serve to provide sufficient and clear information on the use of the products, just as required by food law, the 2022 ruling stated. According to the cantonal court, an alternative designation, such as “plant-based food made from pea protein”, would make it difficult for the public to understand that the product is a meat substitute.
That also would not be in the spirit of Planted Foods. “It is important that consumers know exactly how to use new products like ours and how to easily integrate them into their daily lives: the animal descriptions serve this purpose,” a company spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to SWI swissinfo.ch.
Meanwhile, the FDHA argues that the labelling of vegan meat substitutes, like all other food products, should allow consumers to identify the type of food and not confuse it with others. The department told SWI swissinfo.ch that it interprets the provisions of food legislation on protection against deception differently than the cantonal court.
According to lawyer Versolatto, the ongoing proceedings are a way for the Swiss courts to provide legal clarity in the rather new but fast-growing area of plant-based foods. “The Federal Court decision will set a precedent and give more certainty to Swiss companies producing plant-based alternatives,” he said.
__Switzerland vs Europe__
Should the Federal Court decide to ban the use of animal meat names on Planted’s labels, it would go against European legislation, which allows meat-related mentions on packaging.
France and Belgium already tried to push back on European rules in 2020 when it banned names such as “vegetable steak” and “vegetable chicken pieces”, but both countries have yet to implement national regulations. Switzerland could outpace its neighbours and become the first country in Europe to ban the use of such labels if the court decides accordingly.
The issue remains controversial. Diego Moretti, who studies human nutrition at the Swiss Distance University of Applied Sciences (FFHS), thinks it is not entirely correct to call something chicken if it isn’t: “Vegetable chicken is not entirely equivalent to real chicken from a nutritional point of view.” However, Moretti added that the risk of the two products being confused is very small.
Versolatto, on the other hand, says that it is reasonable from a consumer protection perspective to raise the issue of denomination. “The fear is that some people, especially older people who do not know English, may not realise that these are alternatives to meat,” he said.
But his colleague Janine Anderegg, a food science expert and patent engineer at the Zurich law firm, thinks that consumers are able to distinguish between plant and animal foods because there are now so many alternatives available.
“There are hundreds more plant-based products on supermarket shelves today than there were ten years ago,” said Anderegg. The fact that plant-based alternatives are now competing with meat products weighs heavily on the discussion, she added: “Pressure from the meat industry in trying to protect its own name cannot be excluded.”
> Meanwhile, the FDHA argues that the labelling of vegan meat substitutes, like all other food products, should allow consumers to identify the type of food and not confuse it with others.
Seems like non-issue to me.
I reckon virtually nobody has ever mistaken a vegan chicken for the real thing. It usually says *vegan* all over the packaging.
This is just stupid. Katzenzungen are not made of cats either for example but still called Katzenzungen. And yeah, the meat industry has a lot of influence in this country which should not be the case.
The only people buying the wrong products are the ones that never read the ingredient list.
For new products with names not already well-established in language use, names should not be misleading or confusing like that. Neither chicken nor pork can be vegan, and such products don’t contain any of it.
Personally, I still think if you cannot differentiate between the products it’s on you. I always look closely at what I buy.
“Fleischkäse” is no cheese, “Lyoner” doesn’t come from Lyon, “Bärentatzen” are cookies, not actual bear’s paws… hell it even says “Beer” on Feldschlösschen bottles… don’t see why it should be an issue in this specific case.
A vegan chicken is just a chicken raised on vegan food. No?
It’s not chicken.
This is so stupid lol
Ah the good old “could mislead customers” argument. I really hope the meat lobby doesn’t get through with this.
the only policy that should be created is that vegan products are not allowed to be mixed with meat products (which is already the case). It is currently impossible to mix up vegan an meat products.
I think it’s okay to use these terms because it would just look weird having “flavored pea mush” it’s like saying chicken nuggets would be “cooked chicken corpse paste”
But my issue is seeing things that were always their own food being labeled as vegan with some heavily green washed packaging.
Like falafels in Migros are now in the Vegan aisle.. at this point put all the vegetables there.
Potatoes are vegan but you don’t see them with packaging like “Go vegan life! 🥬” or “great for your health 🫶🏻”
Vegan doesn’t mean healthy. I’ve got an issue with that and it’s packaging.
I’ve bought a sauce that had “MAYO” written on it as a huge label, it was vegan.. tiny vegan leaf on the top right that’s it. At this point why say Mayo? It’s a sauce, no need to say that, just call it Hot sauce or whatever.
Or the premade sandwiches at Migros. I hate when it’s simply called “Chicken sandwich” like at least say “Vegan chicken sandwich” I don’t mind chicken being used there. It’s intentionally misleading, and with green packaging next to actual sandwiches with meat and similar packaging.
Anyway TL:DR I’ve got an issue with misleading packaging that promotes a false sense of healthy and fresh foods, and the shameless attempts to hide the fact is vegan when there’s no shame in it being vegan!
Extra: if you are vegan, please us Yuka to scan the bar codes of your meat alternatives, you’d be surprised by the amount that is saturated in sugars, salts and even dangerous additives..
Dandelions are sadly not made of lion teeth. The true crime? Not made of any feline teeth (yet) known to man
I guess the world is holding its breath with switzerland taking a confident leadership role in matters of highest importance.
I could care less what the so-called highest court in the land says. If it’s not chicken, then it can’t be called chicken.
While superficially it is made out to be about consumer confusion, it is really about putting up soft-barriers to keep people from buying meat substitutes.
Imagine:
You go into a store, you still eat meat but want to reduce your reliance on it, so you enter the store with the idea that you want to make chicken tika massala, but today, you want to use a plant based option. You stand in front of the plant based options, but none tell you which is chicken like. This is too complicated to pick the right one, you leave the plant based isle and buy real chicken.
These soft barriers are everywhere. Go to toppreise.ch, filter by brands. Notice how only a few brands are visible before you extend the menu? Often, brands pay sites money so they are visible before the soft-barrier gets in the way.
Online newspapers, are you more likely to read an article of an ad financed paper where there’s no barrier to entry, or more likely to read one where you have to register, log-in and/or pay? It’s the ad financed one. It’s also why we all have to pay for our public-broadcaster in advance and when we switch on the TV it’s just there, no further barriers to entry. Or why the advertising industry and print publishers fought for the public-broadcaster to show ads – ads put up barriers in your viewing experience and you are more likely to switch off (this is unlike in print where you can just ignore ads, they don’t slow down your reading).
[Also, don’t forget that Proviande, to this day, receives taxpayer millions to further extend Swiss meat consumption.]
It’s not lamb, it’s H’amb!
They should just make two symbols that are universal across Europe. “Contains no Meat” and “Contains no Animal Products”
Imagine meat producers creating this fancy product called “almost falafel”, which in fact is a meatball that tastes a bit like falafel, and they place it next to the real falafels.
Well that’s just wack. I have no problem with vegan alternatives being labelled as specific meat alternatives. At worst a few consumers eat food derived from peas or tofu or something – that’s really not a big deal, the other way around could be.
I have accidently bought vegan chicken before – didn’t even notice until I made it, and everything was fine.
I see no reason we should make marketing vegan alternatives harder.
There were many times I almost accidently bought some fake meat / product, like a can of “chili con carne beef”. I was in a call while shopping and was less thorogh reading the packaging. Later i realised the beef word is scratched out intentionally (was printed like that) and some vegan logo somewhere else on the can when i rotated it and a “best alternative to meat” blabla.
They really should not market it like that, max write in small letters that the taste intends to mimic xy meat product.
Also i dont care if someone is soo much against meat, would want to eat a fake ham burger or fake chicken.
What comes next, an aluminium case laptop with an apple-like logo, with a small “*not that apple, but this is a pc a best alternative to a mac” disclaimer?
I do buy sometimes soy / hummus etc, or even a mcplant – for the specific taste. so i have no issue with those products. But don’t try to mislead me false labels..
This is fun…
What about “Not Milk”? Is that misleading? Will people believe it’s actually milk? There is a picture of a crossed out cow on the box!
https://notco.com/us/products/notmilk
And you can buy animal-free dairy ice cream. No cows involved but it _must_ be labelled as dairy by law, as it is the same protein and if you are allergic to it, you cannot drink it.
https://braverobot.co/pages/faqs
Hard to care about any argument that is so transparently “I don’t want competition with meat products”.
No one on this planet believes this is about consumer protection, if anything… The exact opposite
Id like to see a compromise where they can continue to use the words of meats they dont contain but they have to call it vegan chicken *flavoured* product rather than simply vegan chicken.
Farmers /meat/diary libby in switzerland are way to powerful. Cannt have an almond milk because there is no dairy in it. But fruit yoghurt without any actual fruit is fine
Thanks for sharing!
Could they call it chicken-like?