fact, 42.4% of consumers believed that the use of “meaty” names should be permitted provided that the products are clearly labelled as vegetarian or vegan. One in five consumers think that the use of “meaty” should never be allowed on vegetarian or vegan products. “The use of ‘meaty’ names on plant-based products makes it easier for consumers to know how to integrate these prod- ucts in a meal and, as such, they should not be banned,” BEUC concluded. “The denomination of vegetarian and vegan prod- ucts should neither mislead consumers nor discourage them from buying these products.”
Cultural appropriation Pekka Pesonen, head of Copa-Cogeca, disagreed: “If the pur- pose is to promote plant-based products, why should this be done at the expense of tradition and work done by other product categories?” Lava agreed, saying that meat denominations are deeply rooted in EU cultural heritage. Ham, escalope, fillet, sausage and cordon bleu are all traditional names that have been de- rived from the hard work of farmers and producers, he said. “Although these products can have different local interpreta- tions depending on the European region, everybody knows what to expect when they buy them,” Lava said. “This is why there has never been a need to protect them.” As the marketing of meat alternative products grows, the meat sector believes its common heritage is at stake. “With- out protection, tomorrow an escalope could easily be made of carrot, soybean or potato starch, while for many years con- sumers have always known that it was made of poultry meat,” said Lava. “The imitation industry has taken advantage of a European loophole to hijack these powerful common names in its favour and make huge profits from that.” Jean-Pierre Fleury, chair of the Copa-Cogeca working party on beef and veal, agreed. “I am sorry to say that this is an ob- vious case of cultural appropriation,” he said. “Certain market- ing agencies are using this to deliberately confuse consumers
by promoting the view that substituting one product for an- other has no impact on the nutritional intake. This path may be paved with good intentions, but in the long term it will open the door to the arrival of other confusing denomina- tions... We are about to create a ‘brave new world’ where mar- keting is disconnected from the real nature of products, one which blithely amalgamates big business interests and values,” he added.
Vote disappoints meat sector In late October, MEPs voted 284 in favour of the amendment and 379 against, with 27 abstentions. The MEPs, however, did approve an amendment to further limit the use of dairy-related names for plant-based dairy alternatives such as “cheese substitute” and “yoghurt-style”. EU law has al- ready banned the use of “milk”, “cheese” and “butter” on ve- gan products that do not come from animals. “Soy milk”, for instance, is not allowed but “soy drink” is. “Of course, we are disappointed with the result of the vote,” said Lava following the announcement, “given that, initially, back in 2019, we knew that the Agriculture Committee sup- ported our amendment. We fail to understand the logic of those MEPs who voted for an amendment to protect milk denominations but rejected our amendment to have the same protection for meat.” The organisation plans to continue its efforts to protect meat denominations. “We know that nationally, some mem- ber states have already put forward some initiatives to pro- tect meat sales denomination,” said Lava, pointing to France. “This shows that our argument is justified.” In the meantime, Lava suggests that the meat-alternative sector should follow its own path and get creative with new names, as margarine producers once did. They did not hi- jack the term “butter” to promote the new alternative, he pointed out. “Today the two denominations coexist, and margarine has become a popular alternative to butter,” he said in conclusion.
▶ PIG PROGRESS | Volume 37, No. 1, 2021
Paul-Henri Lava, AVEC: “We can- not accept that vegan or vege- tarian products use the reputa- tion and heri- tage of some meat denomina- tions to sell products which are completely different.”
51
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
