Written by Mitha Shameer
Content Specialist, Esko
Though plant-based products existed before, they only really started showing up in stores everywhere in the early 2010s, as health trends and alternative diets began to take off.
Initially, most brands used familiar dairy- or meat‑derived terms such as soy milk, almond butter, vegan cheese, plant burger, etc., on labels. Plant-based packaging often had nothing more than a “vegan” or “plant‑based” sticker, with no consistent legal framework behind it.
But as the plant‑based market exploded, with sales hitting huge numbers, regulators began scrutinizing how these products were named and labeled to prevent consumer confusion. The turning point came in 2017, when the EU Court of Justice ruled that terms like “milk,” “butter,” and “cream” belong exclusively to animal products. This forced plant alternatives to add qualifiers like “soya drink.”
How Plant-Based Labeling Evolved Over the Years
Since then, labeling rules have diverged significantly across regions, creating a complex regulatory patchwork.
In October 2025, the EU Parliament voted to ban 29 meat-related terms like “burger,” “steak,” “sausage,” and “bacon” on plant-based items, though final approval is still pending. In addition, some countries like France and the Czech Republic have allowed terms like “soy steak” to be used again.
A new ISO standard from July 2025 defines “plant-based” strictly: zero animal ingredients, or qualifiers like “plant-based vegetarian” for limited animal use. The US FDA dropped draft guidance in January 2025, classifying plant-based alternatives to animal products as “non-standardized foods.” The FDA also urged brands and manufacturers to follow clear plant sourcing on their labels to avoid misleading consumers.
What You Can and Can’t Say: Region‑Wise Rules
When you’re shipping plant-based products across borders, things can get complex pretty fast. Labeling rules aren’t the same across regions, and one non-compliant claim is all it takes to land you in regulatory hot water.
Here’s a breakdown of what labeling rules currently permit or restrict in the US, EU, and UK (as of 2025):
European Union (EU)
The EU has some of the most defined rules when it comes to plant-based labeling, and if you’re shipping products into Europe, this is where things get strict quickly. Dairy terms like “milk,” “butter,” and “cheese” have been off-limits for plant-based alternatives since 2017, and the line has only sharpened since then.
In October 2025, the European Parliament voted to extend similar restrictions to meat terms, approving a ban on 29 commonly used words such as “burger,” “sausage,” “steak,” and “bacon” when they’re used to describe plant-based products. Under this amendment, “meat” is now defined strictly as edible parts of an animal, which means these terms are reserved exclusively for animal-derived products at every stage of marketing. The final trilogue approval with the Council and Commission is still pending, with negotiations slated for December 2025.
But even with EU-wide rules, the day-to-day reality isn’t completely uniform. Member states still interpret and enforce these regulations differently. France and the Czech Republic, for example, recently overturned their own local bans after court rulings, which means you can still legally use terms like “soy steak” or “vegetable sausage” there. These decisions are also in line with the Court of Justice of the European Union’s viewpoint that member states cannot create stricter bans beyond EU law.
The ISO 8700:2025 plant-based standard, published in July 2025, helps bring global consistency by defining Category 1 products as fully “plant-based” (no animal-derived ingredients, with a characterizing plant ingredient) and Category 2 as those allowing limited conditional animal inputs (requiring qualifiers). For brands managing packaging across multiple geographies, this standard helps reduce ambiguity and makes it easier to maintain uniformity across regions.
United States (US)
In the U.S., the FDA treats most plant-based foods as non-standardized, which gives brands more flexibility with naming, as long as the label clearly tells consumers what the product is made from. For meat or seafood alternatives, that usually means leading with the plant source, such as “soy burger,” “black-bean patty,” or “lentil sausage.” The FDA’s draft guidance doesn’t ban familiar meat terms like “burger” or “sausage,” but it does expect brands to use them in a way that doesn’t imply the product is animal-derived.
Milk alternatives fall under separate 2023 draft recommendations. Despite the long debate, the FDA still recognizes terms like “soy milk” and “almond milk” as common and acceptable names, not violations of dairy standards. What the agency does encourage is clarity around nutrition, especially when a plant-based milk has more or less of certain nutrients compared to dairy. That’s where voluntary comparison statements come in, such as “contains lower protein than milk.”
Where brands get into trouble is with nutrient and comparative claims. Statements like “25% more calcium than cow’s milk” are fine only if backed by reliable data. Regulators want to prevent broad, unqualified claims that suggest plant-based foods are automatically healthier.
Packaging design can also raise questions. While the FDA’s draft guidance doesn’t regulate imagery, misleading visuals like dairy-farm scenes or butcher-style diagrams can still trigger misbranding issues if the overall look implies the food is animal-derived. When in doubt, reviewers look at the net impression the label creates.
Then there’s the state-level layer. Some states are pushing stricter rules, but they vary widely. Florida’s 2025 Farm Bill includes language restricting terms like “milk,” “meat,” “poultry,” or “eggs” for plant-based products, though parts of the law only activate if enough other states adopt similar measures. California, meanwhile, focuses on allergen clarity and doesn’t add extra plant-based naming restrictions beyond FDA guidance.
It’s also worth noting that the FDA’s 2025 guidance is still non-binding while awaiting finalization. Enforcement continues under general misbranding laws, which is why treating the draft guidance as the practical standard is the safest choice, especially for brands scaling nationally and looking to avoid costly relabeling in the future.
United Kingdom (UK)
In the UK, the rules for dairy terminology mirror the EU’s long-standing position. Terms such as “milk,” “yoghurt,” “cheese,” and “cheddar” are entirely off-limits for plant-based items, regardless of qualifiers. Even phrases like “yoghurt-style” or “cheddar-type” have been highlighted in draft guidance and may come under stricter enforcement. The UK is also taking a firmer stance on homophones and creative spellings such as “mylk,” signaling that brands should avoid clever workarounds and instead rely on clear, unambiguous naming.
Another shift you need to be aware of is Northern Ireland’s Phase 3 labeling expansion, which fully kicked in on July 1, 2025. Under Phase 3, a wider range of products, especially composite foods like pizzas, ready meals, and desserts, must now carry individual “Not for EU” labels. These rules apply when a product contains a mix of plant-based components and any processed product of animal origin (POAO), and when the item isn’t shelf-stable or already covered by sanitary or phytosanitary checks.
Fully plant-based items generally remain exempt unless they fall under niche official-control categories. But if even a tiny portion of the product includes animal-derived ingredients, say a lasagna with plant vegetables but a meat-based sauce, you must label every single unit. Outer-box labeling or blanket declarations are no longer acceptable.
A short grace period allowed Phase 3 goods already in Northern Ireland before July 1 to become compliant by July 31, 2025, but that window is now closed. If you operate across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you’ll need a tighter, more coordinated workflow to keep packaging aligned and avoid delays, fines, or disrupted shipments in an already complex post-Brexit environment.
Symbols and Certifications: What They Really Mean
Plant-based shoppers rely heavily on symbols, so using the right certification is just as important as getting your wording right. But each symbol comes with its own standards, geographic recognition, and audit requirements, which means choosing the wrong one can undermine your credibility.
The Vegan Society Sunflower, one of the oldest and most widely recognized marks, signals that your product contains no animal ingredients and hasn’t been tested on animals. It works well globally and applies across categories. V-Label, which is especially prominent in Europe, conducts its own independent audits and is often preferred by food and beverage brands that want stronger verification. Meanwhile, ProVeg’s Plant-Based certification, introduced more recently, focuses on verifying plant-derived characteristics without ambiguity and is quickly becoming a go-to for companies that market internationally.
The new ISO plant-based standard adds another layer of clarity. It distinguishes between products that are entirely plant-derived and those that are primarily plant-based but may contain limited animal-origin inputs. If you want to use the term “plant-based” without qualifiers, you need to meet the strictest zero-animal-ingredient requirement. Because of this, DIY symbols or self-created vegan badges are strongly discouraged. They not only erode trust but could also be considered misleading in some jurisdictions.
Risky Claims That Get Brands into Trouble
Despite all the information available, many brands still fall into the same traps, mostly because plant-based labeling feels familiar, but the regulations behind it aren’t. One of the most common issues is using traditional meat or dairy descriptors without proper qualifiers. Calling something “milk” or “cheese” without a plant source is an automatic red flag in the EU and UK, but even in the US, regulators increasingly insist on clarity to avoid confusing consumers.
Another recurring problem is failing to consider allergens and contamination. Oat-based snacks labeled gluten-free, for instance, often don’t meet the legal requirements because of cross-contact during milling or processing. Similarly, brands tend to rely on health-oriented messaging such as phrases like “better for you,” “clean protein,” or “nutritionally superior” without realizing that these imply comparative claims that must be backed by scientific evidence.
Packaging visuals are also a surprisingly tricky area. Anything that mimics the appearance of dairy, eggs, or meat, such as idyllic farm scenes, images of raw cuts, or drips of “milk” could easily be interpreted as misleading depending on the market. These inconsistencies lead to enforcement notices, fines, forced relabeling, and in severe cases, full product recalls.
How Comply Helps You Stay Ahead of All This
Plant-based labeling rules shift constantly by region, product type, and sometimes even quarter. Tracking all this manually is nearly impossible, especially when each market has its own naming standards, claim restrictions, and visual-presentation rules. That’s exactly why Comply exists. Comply is an AI-powered automated label compliance solution which helps to ensure that your packaging artwork is always compliant and error-free.
With Comply, you can upload any artwork and instantly see which elements may cause compliance issues in the US, UK, or EU. The platform checks your label against your custom rulebooks whether it is region-specific naming rules, claim guidelines, allergen requirements, ingredient-source disclosures, and more. It then generates a detailed result card that shows:
- What’s correct
- What’s incorrect
- Why it was flagged
- Which rule or regulation it relates to
- What your team needs to update
No more jumping between PDFs, regulatory notes, local guidelines, or outdated spreadsheets. Everything lives in one place, from your rules and checks to files, feedback, and approvals.
Comply also acts as a built-in training layer for your team. Designers, PMs, and marketers learn the nuances, such as when to use “almond beverage” vs. “almond milk,” or when a “vegan burger” claim is acceptable simply by running the artwork through the tool.
For plant-based brands shipping globally, this means tighter approvals, fewer revisions, reduced risk, and faster time to market, without needing a regulatory specialist on every single project.
Final Thoughts: Why Getting Labeling Right Matters
Plant-based products are booming. But consumer trust, regulatory compliance, and brand credibility all hinge on clear, honest, region-appropriate labeling. A misstep, such as calling almond milk “milk” in the EU, or using “vegan cheese” without proper naming can lead to regulatory pushback, recalls, or brand damage.
By building compliance right into your packaging and artwork workflows and establishing internal guardrails early (for naming, claims, visuals, certification use), you stay ahead of risk and enable smoother global scale.
