In January 2025, the FDA released their Draft Guidance for Industry on the Labeling of Plant-Based Alternatives to Animal-Derived Food. The scope of the guidance covers plant-based eggs, seafood, poultry, meat, and dairy products (excluding plant-based milk alternatives) and suggests naming obligations for these foods that specify their specific plant-sources in their product names. PBFA is actively engaged on this issue, which would impact hundreds of plant-based foods companies and many PBFA members, and recently submitted comments highlighting that this draft guidance is unprecedented, unfair, and unnecessary, posing potential roadblocks for the plant-based foods industry.
PBFA is the first and only trade association in the U.S. representing the plant-based food industry, which accounts for $8 billion in retail sales across over 20 product categories and includes nearly 200 leading companies.
The stated goal of the Draft Guidance is to ensure plant-based alternative labels are "truthful and not misleading and accurately describe the food;” however, existing regulations already achieve these objectives. The guidance suggests plant-based brands adopt names like “Chickpea & Lentil-Based Fish Sticks,” “Chia & Flax Seed Eggless Scramble,” and “Black Bean Mushroom Veggie Patties” for their products, despite the fact that this approach deviates significantly from the FDA’s regulation of other foods. Existing FDA regulations on "common or usual names" emphasize simplicity, stating names should be "in as simple and direct terms as possible" and describe the basic nature, characterizing properties, or ingredients of the food. For consistency, and in line with existing regulations favoring "simple and direct terms," PBFA asserts that the FDA should continue to allow names like “Veggie Burger,” “Plant-Based Fish Sticks,” and “Eggless Scramble.”
Consider how other foods are labeled. For example: "Cereals" (including "Grain Free Cereals") are not required to list the specific grain or substitute ingredient in the name; "Vegetable Oils" like soybean or canola oil can use the name "vegetable oil" without listing the specific source(s) in the name, only in the ingredient statement; and "Gluten Free Bread," an alternative to standardized bread containing wheat flour, does not need to list the specific alternative ingredients in its name.
Imposing unique obligations on plant-based foods creates a fundamentally unfair and anti-competitive framework. It disrupts fair competition and risks disincentivizing innovation within the plant-based sector by limiting the creativity and flexibility of manufacturers who use multiple ingredients. Creating more barriers for plant-based food manufacturers ultimately will hinder consumer access to these foods, many of which are being sought out to meet specific dietary needs and preferences.
This effort from the FDA appears to be "a solution in search of a problem" and does not address any current consumer need. Existing regulations, such as misbranding laws and the requirement for ingredient lists, are sufficient to prevent deception and inform consumers. The concern that consumers are misled into thinking plant-based products contain animal ingredients is baseless, and courts have consistently rejected such claims – in fact, the FDA itself has previously concluded consumers are not misled in this way in their guidance for labeling of plant-based milk.
In conclusion, we urge the FDA to withdraw the Draft Guidance, as it imposes unnecessary burdens without justification, disrupts fairness and competition, and is not supported by evidence of consumer confusion or a legitimate need for unique labeling. Existing regulations are deemed sufficient to ensure truthful and transparent labeling.
To read PBFA’s full comments, click here.
PBFA Submits Comments on FDA's Draft Guidance on Labeling Plant-Based Alternatives
In January 2025, the FDA released their Draft Guidance for Industry on the Labeling of Plant-Based Alternatives to Animal-Derived Food. The scope of the guidance covers plant-based eggs, seafood, poultry, meat, and dairy products (excluding plant-based milk alternatives) and suggests naming obligations for these foods that specify their specific plant-sources in their product names. PBFA is actively engaged on this issue, which would impact hundreds of plant-based foods companies and many PBFA members, and recently submitted comments highlighting that this draft guidance is unprecedented, unfair, and unnecessary, posing potential roadblocks for the plant-based foods industry.
PBFA is the first and only trade association in the U.S. representing the plant-based food industry, which accounts for $8 billion in retail sales across over 20 product categories and includes nearly 200 leading companies.
The stated goal of the Draft Guidance is to ensure plant-based alternative labels are "truthful and not misleading and accurately describe the food;” however, existing regulations already achieve these objectives. The guidance suggests plant-based brands adopt names like “Chickpea & Lentil-Based Fish Sticks,” “Chia & Flax Seed Eggless Scramble,” and “Black Bean Mushroom Veggie Patties” for their products, despite the fact that this approach deviates significantly from the FDA’s regulation of other foods. Existing FDA regulations on "common or usual names" emphasize simplicity, stating names should be "in as simple and direct terms as possible" and describe the basic nature, characterizing properties, or ingredients of the food. For consistency, and in line with existing regulations favoring "simple and direct terms," PBFA asserts that the FDA should continue to allow names like “Veggie Burger,” “Plant-Based Fish Sticks,” and “Eggless Scramble.”
Consider how other foods are labeled. For example: "Cereals" (including "Grain Free Cereals") are not required to list the specific grain or substitute ingredient in the name; "Vegetable Oils" like soybean or canola oil can use the name "vegetable oil" without listing the specific source(s) in the name, only in the ingredient statement; and "Gluten Free Bread," an alternative to standardized bread containing wheat flour, does not need to list the specific alternative ingredients in its name.
Imposing unique obligations on plant-based foods creates a fundamentally unfair and anti-competitive framework. It disrupts fair competition and risks disincentivizing innovation within the plant-based sector by limiting the creativity and flexibility of manufacturers who use multiple ingredients. Creating more barriers for plant-based food manufacturers ultimately will hinder consumer access to these foods, many of which are being sought out to meet specific dietary needs and preferences.
This effort from the FDA appears to be "a solution in search of a problem" and does not address any current consumer need. Existing regulations, such as misbranding laws and the requirement for ingredient lists, are sufficient to prevent deception and inform consumers. The concern that consumers are misled into thinking plant-based products contain animal ingredients is baseless, and courts have consistently rejected such claims – in fact, the FDA itself has previously concluded consumers are not misled in this way in their guidance for labeling of plant-based milk.
In conclusion, we urge the FDA to withdraw the Draft Guidance, as it imposes unnecessary burdens without justification, disrupts fairness and competition, and is not supported by evidence of consumer confusion or a legitimate need for unique labeling. Existing regulations are deemed sufficient to ensure truthful and transparent labeling.
To read PBFA’s full comments, click here.
Categories
Most Recent Posts