The European Parliament’s recent decision to effectively ban plant-based meat alternatives from using traditional meat terminology-such as “burger” “schnitzel” and “sausage”-has sparked a contentious debate and drawn criticism from within Germany’s governing coalition. The move, approved Wednesday with a significant majority (355 in favor, 247 against, 30 abstentions), aims to prevent consumer confusion and protect established culinary traditions. However, the decision has ignited accusations of unnecessary cultural policing and raised questions about the direction of EU agricultural policy.
Federal Environment Minister Carsten Schneider (SPD) vehemently denounced the measure, dismissing it as a pointless “culture war”. Speaking to Funke-Mediengruppe newspapers, Schneider, a native of Thuringia (a region renowned for its sausages), asserted, “I’m from Thuringia, I don’t confuse those things and I don’t know anyone else who would confuse sausage with tofu”. He stressed that the parliament should focus on more pressing matters, implicitly criticizing the prioritization of naming conventions over substantive legislative action.
The initiative, championed by the conservative European People’s Party (EVP) faction, has garnered support from within Germany’s governing ranks. Federal Agriculture Minister Alois Rainer (CSU) publicly endorsed the proposed regulations, while Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) also voiced his backing for a prohibition on using meat-related terminology for plant-based products.
The proposal’s passage, however, reflects a growing tension within the EU and Germany itself. Critics, including Minister Schneider, suggest the move is a protective measure disproportionately targeting the burgeoning plant-based food sector. Concerns are mounting that this interventionism is driven by pressure from traditional agricultural lobbies seeking to stifle competition and maintain the status quo, rather than addressing genuine consumer concerns.
While the regulation is not yet legally binding – requiring ratification by EU member states through the Council – its implications are already generating significant discussion. The decision signals a potentially restrictive approach to innovation within the food industry and raises broader questions about the EU’s commitment to fostering a diverse and sustainable food system. The scrutiny now turns to the Council, where the outcome hangs in the balance and where similar arguments regarding consumer protection versus industrial influence are expected to be fiercely debated.