In May, requiring terms like "fake" or "imitation" on the labeling of plant-based meat alternatives such as Impossible Burgers. The number of states enacting now , all since 2018.
Why the sudden interest in policing the language used to describe plant-based products? It corresponds with a massive boom in the plant-based industry, which saw from 2017-2023. Despite the fact that plant-based meat and seafood represented only about 1% of the meat category as of 2023, more consumers may move away from meat and dairy as alternatives .
Across the country, and are lobbying heavily to restrict terms like "milk" and "sausage" on plant-based alternatives, arguing that such terms cause consumer confusion and that restricting them will promote transparency. Meanwhile, plant-based industry advocates say this type of labeling is important for setting consumer expectations regarding texture and taste. They argue that the real motive behind language-restricting legislation is to reduce competition, criticizing these government policies as ""
As these industries battle it out, where is the concern for consumer health?
Profit Over Public Health
In some ways, plant-based industry interests naturally align with climate and public health. Plant-based products tend to be more compatible with fostering an environmentally sustainable food system that provides nutritious food for all. For example, producing a Beyond Burger generates (GHG) compared to producing the same-sized beef burger. And GHG emissions from most plant-based milk alternatives are than cow's milk. As the climate changes, plant-based foods will play an important role in sustainably nourishing a growing population.
However, we can't ignore the benefits of cow's milk, which is the , vitamin D, and potassium in U.S. children's diets. And the jury is out on certain meat alternatives are to actual meat.
The issue is that the current labeling wars don't appear to be focused on health -- the industry players seem to have their eyes primarily on profit. Labeling policies should be designed to promote public health and access to nutritious foods.
To achieve this, plant-based labeling policy should prioritize consumer health, be fair, not misleading, and not derogatory toward plant-based products, and (particularly in the case of plant-based milks) inform consumers about key nutritional differences between plant- and animal-derived products.
Current Labeling Practices Are Not Misleading
that incorporating words associated with animals on labels does not make consumers believe plant-based products are animal-derived. Policies like the would prohibit plant-based alternatives from using labeling terms like "milk" or "cheese." But consumers of "almond milk" already know that it doesn't come from lactating mammals. And alternative products using labeling terms like "burger" also invariably use terms like "plant-based" or "vegetarian," as their marketing strategy, meaning they are already highlighting the fact that the products are not derived from animals.
The plant-based origin of these foods is already clear, and there's no need to restrict labeling terms. However, the nutritional differences between these products can and should be more clearly conveyed.
Nutritional Differences Should Be Highlighted Fairly
Plant-based products have a reputation of being healthy. This stems from their utility as alternatives to red and processed meats, which are associated with , and their nutritious component ingredients such as , which are rich in fiber, vitamins, and minerals, and low in saturated fat and sodium.
But plant-based options aren't all created equal. When plants are processed into nuggets and patties, beneficial nutrients can be lost and harmful ones added. Some plant-based meat analogues have excess amounts of , at times even exceeding their . Just as different cuts of meat can have different nutritional values (think pork tenderloin versus bacon), there's a spectrum of healthfulness for products of plant origin.
Policies that prioritize one industry's interests without attention to nutritional quality do not necessarily promote healthier diets.
Front-of-package nutrition labeling, a at FDA, would evenhandedly highlight important nutritional aspects of both plant- and animal-based products. Products high in sodium, saturated fat, or added sugars would bear prominent disclosures conveying those facts, regardless of source. Assuming both FDA and the Department of Agriculture adopt such a policy, the disclosures would apply to all products, thus not favoring either industry and promoting informed consumer choice.
Additional Transparency Is Needed for Plant-Based Milks
Plant-based milks merit special consideration due to the unique role of low-fat dairy in the diet, especially for children. Milk is an important source of under-consumed nutrients including calcium and vitamin D, which are particularly important during growth. Consumers may not understand the extent to which milk alternatives do or do not contain key nutrients found in cow's milk, or the nutritional variation among dairy alternatives. This is why recommending that industry voluntarily apply label disclosures when plant-based milks differ from cow's milk in nine key nutrients.
Is FDA on the right track by recommending disclosures for lower levels of key nutrients? Yes and no. The overall approach is right. "Milk" and other related terms should be allowed on plant-based products. It's also desirable to encourage disclosures on non-equivalent products to improve consumer awareness and incentivize fortification of plant-based milk products with key nutrients. However, the current proposed disclosure is so long and complex that manufacturers are unlikely to use it, especially when it's only voluntary.
FDA should make disclosures mandatory and prioritize only the five most important nutrients from milk (vitamin D, calcium, potassium, protein, and vitamin B12). This would ensure uptake of the label while focusing consumer attention on the most important nutritional differences.
FDA Should Finalize Relevant Policies
With the development of a patchwork of state plant-based labeling laws, the time is right to bring consumer health back into focus.
Policies that fairly highlight key nutritional differences between and among plant- and animal-based products are good for both consumer and environmental health. By fine-tuning and finalizing front-of-package and plant-based milk labeling policies, FDA can pull off a victory for both people and the planet in the plant-based labeling battle.
is a policy associate on the Regulatory Affairs team at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), supporting advocacy and research pertaining to food labeling and its potential to improve public health through impacts at the consumer and industry levels. is a senior policy scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, where she oversees CSPI's federal food labeling campaigns and conducts policy-relevant scientific research on food systems topics. is director of Regulatory Affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, where she manages CSPI's policy work related to food safety and labeling, allergens, food additives, dietary supplements, and other consumer products.
Disclosures
CSPI publishes , and is supported by the subscribers to Nutrition Action, individual donors, and foundation grants. CSPI is an independent organization that does not accept any corporate donations.