Alternative proteins offer real marketing potential, particularly when it comes to health and sustainability messaging, but the margin for error on compliance is slim.

The regulatory landscape for food and drink businesses in this space has moved on considerably over the past year, and several developments are now on a trajectory that demands attention well before deadlines land.

We focus here on the three areas we think matter most right now.

1. The EU naming ban: Contingency branding cannot wait

In March 2026, the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement to protect 'meat' terminology, as part of a broader regulation aimed at strengthening farmers' voices in the supply chain. Under the agreement, 31 terms, including 'steak', 'bacon' and 'ribs', would be reserved exclusively for meat products. Both plant-based and cell-cultivated products are caught by the ban.

The implementation timeline remains unclear, though some form of transition period is expected. What is clear is the commercial impact: no alternative protein product, whether cell-cultivated or otherwise, will be permitted to use 'meat' names in the EU.

For businesses operating in the EU, this should prompt an immediate review of product naming, packaging and marketing strategy. Plant-based operators face the same pressure. Our advice is not to wait for implementation dates to crystallise. Start contingency branding and trademark planning now.

2. Cell-cultivated meat: A market in motion

Globally, the cell-cultivated meat category is moving faster than it is in either the UK or the EU. Singapore has been at the forefront, approving chicken and quail products through a collaborative regulatory model. The US has approved cell-cultivated chicken. Israel has done the same for beef under its novel food framework, and Australia approved cell-cultivated quail in 2025. The EU, by contrast, remains the most cautious jurisdiction. Testing is permitted in the Netherlands, but no product has yet been approved.

• The Food Standards Agency (FSA) regulatory sandbox: In the UK, the FSA Regulatory Sandbox for Cell-Cultivated Products (CCP) launched in March 2025 and is due to conclude in February 2027. For businesses in this space, it represents a real chance to engage with the regulator early, helping to shape the framework rather than simply responding to it once finalised. The FSA has not fast-tracked market authorisation applications but has provided an avenue to obtain pre-application advice. 

• The SPS Agreement: Cell-cultivated meat may well fall within the scope of the UK-EU SPS Agreement, and with dynamic alignment expected in this area, the interplay between UK and EU novel food frameworks is a live issue. The reality is that if you have not already applied for novel food authorisation in the UK, it is probably too late. The FSA's prioritisation statement makes this plain, signalling that applications not already in the pipeline are unlikely to be progressed ahead of the SPS taking effect. For businesses trading across both the EU and UK, the more practical route is to apply for EU market authorisation, which will carry greater strategic value in the medium term. Rachael Lyne, a regulatory and compliance partner at Browne Jacobson, has written in more detail about the UK-EU SPS Agreement. 

3. Green claims: The enforcement risk is real and growing

Over 2,500 active climate litigation cases were recorded globally in 2024. For anyone making sustainability claims about alternative proteins, the risk of enforcement action is no longer something to worry about in the abstract.

The JBS USA settlement in November 2025 is a good illustration. The New York Attorney General secured a $1.1m settlement with JBS USA Food Company, the American subsidiary of the world's largest beef producer, after it emerged that the company had advertised a "net zero by 2040" target without any credible plan to get there. As part of the settlement, JBS USA agreed to overhaul its environmental marketing practices and report annually to the Attorney General for three years.

Green claims need to be baked into product development from the start, not bolted on afterwards. In the UK, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act sets the framework; in the EU, it is the Empowering Consumers Directive. As the JBS USA outcome shows, enforcement is not confined to any single jurisdiction. Businesses operating internationally should expect scrutiny wherever they make claims.

The bottom line: every environmental claim about a product needs to be substantiable before it goes public. That applies as much to brand claims as it does to specific on-pack statements. For more guidance on green claims see our green claims in UK advertising guide.

What to do now

The thread running through all of this is timing. Businesses that treat regulatory strategy as a commercial input, rather than a compliance afterthought, will be best placed to navigate what is coming.

In practical terms, that means getting ahead of the regulatory curve for advance warning of risks and room to navigate grey areas with confidence. Alternative proteins carry a heightened risk of enforcement action and legal challenge if communicated poorly, and businesses in this space will benefit from drawing on both internal knowledge and external regulatory expertise.

At Browne Jacobson, our lawyers across the firm regularly advise on issues affecting the food and drink sector. If you would like to find out more about the services our food and drink team can offer, please get in touch with a member of the team.