From Chickpeas to Courtrooms: The Legal Identity of Plant-Based Meats

Welcome back to Womble Perspectives. Today, we’re diving into the increasingly complex world of food labeling—specifically, how nontraditional meat products are navigating a growing regulatory maze.

As plant-based and cultivated meats gain popularity, lawmakers and regulators are stepping in to ensure consumers aren’t misled. But what does that mean for the words we use—like “beef,” “chicken,” or even “bacon”?

Read the full article: An Increasing Regulatory Maze for Nontraditional Meat Products

About the author

L. Christine Lawson

Transcript

Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.

With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.

Welcome back to Womble Perspectives. Today, we’re diving into the increasingly complex world of food labeling—specifically, how nontraditional meat products are navigating a growing regulatory maze.

As plant-based and cultivated meats gain popularity, lawmakers and regulators are stepping in to ensure consumers aren’t misled. But what does that mean for the words we use—like “beef,” “chicken,” or even “bacon”?

Let’s start in Oklahoma.

A new law set to take effect on November 1, 2025, will prohibit the use of traditional meat terms—like “beef” or “chicken”—on labels for products that don’t come from farm animals. That includes cell-cultured meats, insect-based proteins, and plant-based alternatives.

The law doesn’t ban these terms outright—but it does require a clear qualifier. So, if you’re selling a plant-based bacon, you’ll need to make it unmistakably clear that it’s not from a pig.

Meanwhile, the FDA has issued draft guidance for labeling plant-based alternatives to animal-derived foods. While not legally binding, this guidance sets the tone for how manufacturers should communicate with consumers.

The FDA isn’t saying you can’t use terms like “meat” or “cheese”—but you can’t imply that animal products are involved. Instead, labels should clearly state the plant source. Think “chickpea and lentil-based fish sticks” rather than just “plant-based fish sticks.”

And it’s not just about the words. The FDA also wants the plant-based identity to be prominent—bold type, large font, and easy to spot on the front of the package. The goal? Make sure consumers know exactly what they’re buying.

This isn’t just a U.S. issue. The Swiss Supreme Court recently ruled that while plant-based products can use terms like “filet” or “steak,” they can’t be labeled as “chicken” or “beef.” Why? Because under Swiss and EU law, those terms are defined as actual meat from animals.

So, “plant-based chicken” might sound catchy—but in some countries, it’s legally off-limits.

As the market for alternative proteins continues to grow, so too does the complexity of labeling them. For manufacturers, marketers, and legal teams alike, staying ahead of these evolving rules is essential.

That’s it for today’s episode. If you found this helpful, be sure to subscribe and share Womble Perspectives with your colleagues.

Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.

Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.