In a recent decision, the Federal Supreme Court ruled by four votes to one in a public deliberation that the naming of an animal species for plant-based meat substitutes is incompatible with the Swiss Federal Law on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles ("LMG"). This decision was based in particular on the provision of the Ordinance on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles ("LMV"), according to which foodstuffs may only be designated with the description of a circumscribed foodstuff if they comply with the description and the requirements associated with the description (Art. 14 para. 2 LMV). A designation such as "planted chicken" for products that do not contain "chicken" violates the obligation to correctly label foodstuffs.
Both Swiss law and the law of the European Union – which the majority of the judges deemed relevant due to the harmonization of Swiss food legislation with EU law – define "chicken" as poultry or meat. Since there is no such thing as "plant-based chicken", the use of the term "chicken" for plant-based meat substitutes is inadmissible.
At the same time, the Court clarified that it is permissible to use terms such as "fillet" or "steak" for plant-based foods, as although these terms are commonly associated with animal products, they do not inherently mislead consumers. This is in line with the Information Letter no. 2020/3.1 of the Federal Department of Home Affairs on vegan and vegetarian alternatives to foods of animal origin, the significance of which was emphasized in the public deliberation.
In contrast to the lower court, the majority of the Federal Supreme Court judges did not consider whether the average consumer is actually misled by the use of animal names on the packaging of plant-based foods within the meaning of Art. 18 LMG. Accordingly, at least in the context of the public deliberation, the Court did not address the survey conducted by the defendant, which indicated that the vast majority of the public recognizes the plant-based products labelled "planted chicken" (and similar) as a plant-based substitute for meat. The Federal Supreme Court therefore considers inaccurate food labelling to be inherently misleading.
The written reasoning of the Court is not yet available, but it is expected to provide further insights.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
