Over the past year, the European Union’s (EU) Court of Justice released two decisions related to food labeling that might affect U.S. food producers seeking to sell their products in EU Member State markets. The first was a decision regarding the use of the “organic” labeling claim, and the second was related to the prohibition of “meat” labeling terms on plant-based alternative proteins. This article will discuss the two EU decisions. To learn more about US food labeling regulation generally, click here to visit NALC’s Food Labeling reading room.

Background of EU Court of Justice

The EU is an economic and political union between 27 European countries. The Court of Justice is the EU Institution which ensures that EU law is followed. Additionally, the Court reviews the legality of the acts of the EU institutions, ensures that EU countries comply with obligations of EU founding, amending, and accession treaties, and interprets EU law at the request of national courts. Both cases discussed in this article originated as cases in Member States and were referred to the Court of Justice by the Member State’s respective judicial bodies.

Organic Labeling

The first case addresses organic labeling, and specifically the United States – European Union Organic Equivalence Arrangement. Equivalence is an international trade law concept that means one country recognizes that another country’s regulations, while not identical, achieve the same level of safety or protection as its own. Under the US and EU’s equivalency arrangement, organic products that meet USDA’s standards to be certified as organic can be labeled and sold in the EU markets as organic. This means that an operation certified by a USDA accredited certifying agent may sell its products as organic in the EU without needing a separate certification from an EU accredited certifying agent and vice versa. Under this arrangement, US or EU originating products may bear the organic logo of their origin or may bear the logo of the trade partner. For example, a bag of cashews that originates in the US and is certified as organic by the USDA may be sold in EU markets with the USDA organic logo or the EU organic logo. Under the logic of the equivalency agreement, since the organic cashews meet the standards of organic production in the US, they also meet the EU standards of organic production even though the standards for both are not necessarily identical.

In 2022, the EU’s new Regulation on Organic Production and Labeling of Organic Products went into effect. Among other things, this regulation requires trade agreements replace equivalence arrangements, thus the US-EU Organic Equivalency Arrangement will expire in 2027. The EU is conducting negotiations with currently recognized equivalent trade partners, like the US. For current practices of equivalency to continue past January 1, 2027, a trade agreement must be made with the EU.

The Case

The case at hand regards the equivalency arrangement between the US and the EU. Particularly, it discusses the instance where organic production standards differ between the two. Herbaria Krauterparadies GmbH (Herbaria), a German company, produces a beverage called Blutquick.  Blutquick is a beverage made of fruit juice and organically produced herbs which is labeled as being organically produced. In January 2012, Herbaria was ordered by the Bavarian Regional Office for Agriculture in Germany to remove the reference to organic production from the labeling, advertising, and marketing of Blutquick because it did not meet the standards required to bear the organic label. Specifically, German officials claimed that Blutquick contained non-plant vitamins and ferrous gluconate, and that EU law prohibits food products with added vitamins and minerals from bearing the description organic unless the use of the vitamins and minerals was legally required. According to German officials, the vitamins added to Blutquick did not meet that standard.

Herbaria contested the order before the Bavarian Administrative Court in Munich, Germany, which then referred the case to the EU Court of Justice. Herbaria’s primary argument against the order is not that the vitamins used are “legally required,” but that their product is receiving unequal treatment under the equivalency arrangement. Under US organic requirements, organic products are allowed to contain added vitamins and minerals and still bear the organic logo. Thus, Herbaria argues a US-originated product with added vitamins and minerals and certified by USDA would be allowed, under the equivalency arrangement, to bear the organic logo and be sold in the EU markets, while Blutquick is not.

The primary question the Court sought to answer is whether US-originated organic products certified by the USDA containing vitamins and minerals of non-plant origin are allowed to bear the organic production logo of the EU and be sold in EU markets despite not complying with EU organic standards. Ultimately, the Court determined that an organic food of US origin that meets the requirements of the US organic label but does not meet the requirements of the EU’s organic label may not bear the EU organic label. However, the Court did specify that an organic food of US origin bearing the US organic label, though out of compliance with EU labeling standards, is able to sell its products with the US organic label in EU markets. For example, an organic beverage originating from the US that contains added non-plant vitamins and minerals may be sold in EU markets bearing the USDA certified organic label, but it could not bear the EU organic logo because it does not comply with EU organic standards.

This decision is significant for US producers because it means that, despite the equivalency arrangement, food products must comply with all EU organic standards to bear the EU logo. However, the decision does still allow for noncompliant US-originated products to bear the USDA certified logo and be sold in EU markets. The European Commission is expected to release its interpretation of the Court’s decision soon and is expected to clarify the scope of the ruling’s application. To learn more about USDA organic standards, click here to view NALC’s National Organic Program reading room.

Meat Alternatives Labeling

Additionally, the EU Court of Justice made a recent decision regarding a French decree that banned plant-based proteins from bearing “meat terms” in their labeling. In February 2024, France issued a decree to ban the use of terms traditionally used on labeling for food products of animal origin from being used to describe, market, or promote plant-based food products. This decree would have prohibited a plant-based meat alternative from using a term like “sausage” or “burger.” The French government had originally attempted a similar ban in 2022, but it was suspended by an administrative court for being too vague and having too short of a turnaround for compliance. To learn more about the 2024 decree, click here to read NALC article “France takes up plant protein labeling and cell-cultured meat.” While the decree only applied to food products manufactured in France and included a provision that excludes products manufactured in another member state of the EU, several parties sought to annual the decree by challenging it before the French Conseil d’Etat (Council of State) who then referred the case to the EU Court of Justice. The challenging parties included Proteines France, the Union vegetarienne europeenne (EVU), the Association vegetarieene de France (AVF), and Beyond Meat.

The primary question the Court considered was whether EU regulations that protect consumers from being misled by the identity, nature and properties of foods prohibit Member States’ from adopting national measures that ban the use of “meaty terms” for plant-based proteins. The Court reviewed Article 7 of Regulation No 1169/2011, which houses the provisions protecting consumers from being misled about food products, and determined that per the regulations: food must bear a name; that name must be either its legal, customary, or descriptive name; the name must be precisely, clearly, and easily understood by consumers; the name must not mislead consumers about the nature and composition of foods; and that such requirements must be followed in the marketing and promotion of the foods. The Court notes that a food’s legal name is what is prescribed in the EU provisions, or in the absence of that, the name included in the laws of the Member State where the food is sold to the final consumer. Article 2(2)(n) of Regulation No 1169/2011. A “customary name” is the name recognized by consumers in the Member State where the food is sold. A “descriptive name” is one that describes the food in a sufficient manner to explain to consumers the true nature of the food and distinguish it from other products. The Court determined EU law does not include a provision requiring certain “butchery, charcuteries and fish” terms to only be used for foods “being of animal origin.” This means that EU law does not contain a legal name for these types of foods. Additionally, the Court found that the French Decree also does not include a legal name but is instead only referring to “customary names” and “descriptive names.”

The Court finds that provisions in Regulation No 1169/2011 are sufficient to protect consumers, including instances where the ingredient generally expected to be found in a food designated by a customary name or a description name is replaced. For example, the Court determined that when the term “burger,” a customary name generally associated with meat, is used on a product that replaces meat with plant-based substitutes, the EU provisions found in Regulation No 1169/2011 are sufficient to protect consumers. Further, the Court declares that Member States are allowed to adopt a legal name, but a measure, like the French decree, that only bans the use of certain terms for foods with certain characteristics does not amount to a measure adopting a legal name. Consequently, Member States may not prevent plant-based proteins from using customary names or descriptive names when it has not adopted a legal name. However, the Court also held that if it is determined that a food product’s marketing or promotion is misleading to a consumer, the Member State may prosecute the food business operator responsible.

This decision is significant because it prohibits Member States from banning the use of “meat” terms for plant-based proteins when there is no legal definition of such terms. That is, a Member State is prohibited from banning the use of customary names or descriptive names for plant-based proteins. However, it creates a pathway for Member States to regulate the labeling of plant-based proteins if that definition were to be created, and also reaffirms the right of Member States to act against food business operators that promote and sell food that misleads the consumer. On March 27, 2025, the European Parliament clarified that the determination of whether a name is suitable should be on a case-by-case basis. That clarification, as part of the written answer to Parliamentary question – E-002312/2024- is available here.

Conclusion

The EU Court of Justice published two opinions over the past year related to food labeling. In the first, the Court determined that food products imported under US-EU Organic Equivalency Agreement must be incompliance with EU organic production standards in order to bear the EU organic logo. In the second, the EU determined that Member States are prohibited from barring customary names and descriptive names from being used to label plant-based proteins where there is no legal name defined.  The rulings may be of interest to United States producers and processors selling in the EU marketplace.