Fish joins meat in fray over veggie food
In 1929, Belgian surrealist artist René Magritte painted 'This is not as pipe' to argue that a label does not constitute the object itself.
Almost a hundred years later, Brussels is caught in a dilemma over representations and the defense of what is 'real'.
First came the meat. The livestock sector recently stepped up pressure to ban the use of traditional meat names for plant-based products, to which the Commission yielded last week.
For the meat producers, selling a chickpea preparation as 'no-beef' is crossing a line. The same goes for the fish industry, which has joined the fray.
The EU fishing lobby is accusing vegetarian companies of giving their no-fish products a disguise that's a little too convincing.
'It's important to call a spade a spade,' said Daniel Voces, managing director of Europêche, in a press release. 'Too many products use fish species names, seafood-related terms, and even pictures of genuine fish, all without actually containing any'.
'What's on the label, and is it telling the full story?' asked Voces.
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are ready to support the fish industry in its fight. "The sector (...) will have to compete with fish that is not fish," said centre-right MEP Isabelle Le Callennec (EPP, France), adding that fish lovers should be "worried".
This week, the Parliament's committee on fisheries discussed a report saying that EU rules fall short of protecting seafood products from name appropriation by their veggie counterparts.
It argues that labels such as 'salmon vegetarian alternative' raise concerns and points to a mosaic of invented names and wordplays: 'Solmon', 'Sal-nom', 'Salmonderful', 'Toona', 'Tu-nah', 'Tunalicious'... The list is as long as the market is creative.
While the report warned that these labels can easily confuse the shopper, others say this is only – or still – an assumption.
'A factor is missing here, and it is actual consumer behaviour,' said Fien Minnens, researcher in agri-food marketing and consumer behaviour at Ghent University, in an interview with Euractiv, pointing to data gaps in the study.
'The report is very much assuming that this is clearly misleading, even implying that market growth could be due to these practices,' Minnens added. The beauty in a name Unsurprisingly, the EU vegetarian lobby (EVU) weighted in and sent MEPs a letter to win them over.
The EVU said the plant-based industry knows very well who its clientele is, and has no need – or interest – to fool them. 'The reason producers implement this practice is to ensure plant-based consumers, their target audience, buy the products. It would be opposed to the interest of the producers to mislead their target audience.'
Minnens said there must be a way for the veggie industry to give attractive cues to the consumer looking for fish lookalikes without running the risk of tricking shoppers into thinking they're buying the real catch.
The PECH committee's report suggests restricting aquatic species names for plant-based foods altogether, but Minnens wonders if there's room for compromise
'If you say soy-based product inspired by tuna , is that enough to avoid confusion, or do we really need to ban those names?' she asked herself, insisting on the need of evidence-based studies. A matter of principle For Minnens, at the core of the spat is the raison d'être of veggie products. 'There is a group of consumers that is consciously choosing not to eat seafood, but is still looking for that culinary experience, and that feels threatening for the fishing industry'.
Europêche argues that it has 'no issue' with new food products and that this is not about 'plant-based vs seafood'. Still, it wants to assert the dominance of the 'real kind' of healthy food.
In a press release, the organisation denounced the idea that 'the health halo around plant-based' masks a reality. 'Many of these products are ultra-processed, high in salt or fat, and contain allergens or imported ingredients'. Meanwhile, it said fish contains 'real Omega-3, not just added supplements'.
Beyond the debates over the healthiness and sustainability of faux fish, the increasing market for veggie products is there – and a part of the EU fish industry is tapping into its economic potential.
The Parliament's report itself found that several giant seafood processors have chosen to diversify their supply and are behind the same plant-based alternatives at stake.
Some might say it's a classic case of 'if you can't beat them, join them.'
As Brussels debates whether 'Toona' is witty branding or bending the rules, one thing is clear: from Magritte's pipe to the supermarket fridge, the question still lingers — is a name ever just a name?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
an hour ago
- Euractiv
Deadline looms in Kosovo's parliamentary stalemate
A months-long stand-off over Kosovo's next parliamentary speaker is dragging the tiny Balkan nation toward an unparalleled crisis, experts warn, ahead of a deadline this weekend. After more than 50 attempts, Kosovo's MPs now have just two days to meet a court mandate to pick their new speaker, a key step toward Albin Kurti's possible return to office."This is an unparallelled situation, an undefined vacuum and chaos," law professor Mazllum Baraliu told Kurti's Vetevendosje party topped the February elections, it did not win the seats needed to install its chosen speaker, Albulena Haxhiu – a pick that opponents view as too political for the role. Even if the Vetevendosje overcome this impasse, the party will still need to negotiate its way to a majority to govern. Last month, after dozens of failed votes, the Constitutional Court set a 30-day deadline, which expires at midnight on Saturday. Baraliu said instead of cooperating to protect the state, 120 MPs instead had "trampled" it. "That is absurd," he said. 'Circus of democracy' Without a speaker, the parliament can't be formed, and no new minister, including the prime minister, can be sworn in – forcing Kurti into a caretaker role for more than five months. "The Assembly has turned into a circus of democracy," Eugen Cakolli, from independent monitor the Kosovo Democratic Institute, said. "Without a doubt, it is one of the most serious, longest and most consequential crises in the recent political history of Kosovo," Cakolli said. In Kosovo, the inaugural session of parliament must be reconvened every 48 hours until a speaker is elected. Ordinarily, there is no legal time limit for how long this can continue. "The citizens will pay the highest price from this political experiment that risks plunging the country into an institutional dead end," economist Safet Gerxhaliu said. Facing ongoing sanctions and a "frozen" accession process into the European Union, the situation was alarming for the continent's newest country, he added. "Kosovo has been forgotten by the EU," said Gerxhaliu. The lack of a functioning government also meant Kosovo risked losing EU funding of more than €883 million, said Njomza Arifi, a researcher at the Pristina-based think tank Group for Legal and Political Studies. Donkeys and deadlines Outside Pristina's parliament, there have been few signs of public outcry over the stalemate, but one man has become a symbol of protest. "I have no other homeland – MPs, don't make it collateral for stubbornness," lawyer Arianit Koci told media after hacking at his hair with an electric trimmer in his latest stunt. Earlier, he had brought four donkeys to the entrance of the assembly, a not-so-subtle jibe at "who is leading Kosovo". His presence has meant most MPs pick up their pace when entering the assembly. Inside, however, there has been little change. Early this week the Kosovo's President Vjosa Osmani called on the court to clarify what would happen if the order lapsed. "This is an attempt to prevent irreparable consequences for the constitutional order of the country," she said. But as the deadline approached, even the nation's would-be leader was unsure of the outcome. "I don't know what will happen," Kurti said in a brief response to reporters' questions on Monday.
Euractiv
an hour ago
- Euractiv
Germany and France to EU: Stay out of arms export policy
The defence ministers from Germany and France both declared that the European Union has absolutely no role to play in weapons export decisions, issuing a clear rebuke to European Commission ambitions to ease trade within the EU weapons market. Weapons export decisions are 'exclusively' the preserve of national governments, and the EU and the European Commission 'have no role to play in this regard ', German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said on Thursday evening at a joint press conference with his French counterpart, Sébastien Lecornu. The remarks demonstrate strong and united opposition from the EU's two most important members to the Commission's push to l oosen export controls within the EU in order to fast-track arms production. The EU executive has proposed allowing countries to skip obtaining approval before reselling key sensitive components used in weapons manufacturing. Many countries control how weapons and other sensitive products can be used, and retain the right to veto the further resale of defence equipment to third countries. France has for months opposed the idea of loosening those rules within the EU, as Euractiv first reported earlier this spring . Paris has argued that the move goes beyond existing agreements on transfers of defence-related products within the EU – and would effectively strip France of the right to control and keep track of where critical components end up. But despite those protests from Paris, the Commission has kept pitching the idea of loosening export rules, most recently last month in its package to ease regulation on the defence sector, known as the "defence omnibus". The Commission also announced plans to revise the existing intra-EU transfer directive, which governs trade in defence-related products within the bloc, sometime in the coming months. Pistorius's remarks, however, clearly bolster France's opposition to those changes. "There is no question of the European Commission interfering in the competences of the member states, especially when it comes to arms exports," Lecornu said. (bts, aw)
Euractiv
6 hours ago
- Euractiv
Fighting for the margins: Climate diplomacy may be the only front to engage China
Cecilia Trasi works at Bruegel as an Energy and Climate Research Analyst. Prior to joining Bruegel, she held positions at the European Commission and the OECD. She holds a BSc in Economics at Università Cattolica in Milan and a Master's in Public Policy at the Hertie School in Berlin. With COP30 in Belém on the horizon, global climate diplomacy is drifting. The last climate conference confirmed that delivery of climate commitments is lagging just as ambition must rise. So far, 173 countries – including China, India and the EU – have yet to submit their updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) with pledges for 2035. The United States, for its part, has again pulled out of the Paris Agreement, slashed international climate finance and embraced a 'fossil fuel first' agenda. In this fragmented landscape, China stands out. It dominates clean technology supply chains, is scaling up renewables at home, and it is a force in climate diplomacy and finance to countries in the Global South. But this is not multilateral leadership in the traditional sense. China's climate engagement is strategic, domestically rooted, and tightly woven into its industrial and geopolitical ambitions. At the same time, the recently enacted Energy Law explicitly recognises coal as a 'basic safeguard and system regulator' in the national energy system. Coal still dominates its fuel mix, accounting for more than 70% of the overall fuel combustion CO2 emissions, over half of which comes from its power sector. This dual trajectory of expanding both renewables and coal is not an accident of policy: It is the policy. And it reflects a fundamental calculus: Climate policy in China must be consistent with domestic economic and political stability. Beijing expands green industries for competitiveness, scales fossil fuels for stability, and uses climate cooperation selectively to shape its external relationships. Climate policy in China is about domestic continuity first – and the external message is clear: It will decarbonise at its own pace, on its own terms. In this context, the July 2025 EU–China High-Level Dialogue offered little in substance – but important signals nonetheless. At a time of growing EU-China economic tension and sharp divergence in trade policy, both sides reaffirmed the value of structured climate engagement and the need to raise ambition ahead of COP30. Vice Premier Ding reiterated China's intention to submit a comprehensive NDC this fall, while EVP Ribera called for urgent progress from both sides. This mutual recognition underscores that climate diplomacy remains one of the areas where dialogue is functioning: not to affirm shared values, but to shape outcomes where interests align. Instead of hoping for breakthroughs, the EU should target cooperation in areas where concrete progress is possible: carbon markets, methane reduction, and adaptation finance. Continued technical dialogue on China's emissions trading system could enhance monitoring and verification, while laying groundwork for future interoperability. Methane mitigation (especially in coal and agriculture) offers quick, low-cost cuts, even without China joining the Global Methane Pledge. But, above all, adaptation offers a less politicised and more promising path forward. China has called for joint support to developing countries in their green transitions. While the motivations are strategic, the opportunity is real. Both sides are ramping up investments in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. Aligning efforts, even loosely, on resilience infrastructure, early warning systems, and climate risk planning would allow the EU and China to deliver meaningful outcomes without requiring normative convergence. Structured coordination through platforms like the High-Level Dialogue can help ensure initiatives reinforce rather than duplicate each other. Still, the EU must remain clear-eyed. Brussels has urged China to commit to a declining emissions pathway by 2035. But without yet a target of its own, and with persistent tensions over trade instruments like CBAM, the bloc's leverage is limited. Instead of relying on moral authority, the EU should work through coalitions – with vulnerable states, emerging economies, and finance institutions. By raising the diplomatic cost of inaction while offering off-ramps for cooperation, the EU can help bend global ambition upwards. Europe must engage with this reality, without any illusions. Structured dialogue with China will not erase tensions and it is not about shared principles. But it can influence choices on the margins. And in the fight against climate change, margins matter.
