On October 5, 2023, the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) updated its policy on simulated meat and simulated poultry products and their labelling requirements.

The new guidance clarifies that "foods that contain no meat, poultry or fish and that do not have the appearance of meat or poultry do not satisfy the definition of a simulated meat or a simulated poultry product", and are exempt from the requirements to include "simulated (naming the meat or poultry)" as well as the applicable phrase "contains no (meat or poultry)" on the principle display panel.

Previously, the CFIA defined simulated meat or poultry products more broadly, as those that "do not contain any meat or poultry, but are represented as having the physical and nutritive characteristics of meat or poultry". By this definition, all such plant-based products were captured by the definition and therefore subject to the related labelling requirements, including, for e.g., tempeh patties which are a plant-based product but did not intend to "simulate" a meat product, but rather, provide a protein-rich alternative.

Now the CFIA provides that foods that contain no meat, poultry or fish and that do not have the appearance of meat or poultry do not satisfy the definition of a simulated meat or a simulated poultry product. Such exempted foods:

  • are generally made of mostly plant-based ingredients
  • may contain other animal products (such as milk and eggs)
  • are not labelled and/or advertised with words or images that present or imply that they resemble or that they are comparable to meat or poultry products.

Importantly, these exempted foods must not be likely to be mistaken for meat or poultry products. To determine this, the overall impression of the product is assessed. The CFIA will consider all information on the food label and in advertisements, including appearance, descriptive terms, claims and statements, and graphics.

Manufacturers of exempted products are no longer required to declare that such products do not contain meat or poultry.

Appearance

By way of example, it was previously unclear if a product such as a tempeh patty would be considered a simulated meat product. The CFIA has clarified that while such a food may have certain visual characteristics (such as colour, texture, shape) similar to that of a meat or poultry product, they are not likely to be mistaken for a meat or poultry product. They are not labelled or advertised as resembling a meat or poultry product. The case is different for a non-meat food that has components manufactured to have the appearance of a beef burger, for example, whether components have been added to the product to simulate bleeding, marbling of fat, or visual appearance of meat cuts or parts. The CFIA will consider these components of a product's appearance to determine if it is considered exempted.

Descriptive Terms

It was equally unclear if it was permissible for plant-based items to use descriptive terms like "burger", "sausage", "loaf", "patty" or "jerky" . Now, the CFIA has clarified that such terms are permitted so long as the food "does not have the appearance of a meat or poultry product, and is not likely to be mistaken for a meat or poultry product or simulated meat or simulated poultry product". By way of example, the CFIA cites "veggie burger", "tofu burger," "Portobello mushroom burger", "lentil loaf", "soy patty", "soy sausage" as permissible.

Claims, Advertisements and Representation

Broadly speaking, claims are permitted provided they are truthful and not misleading. Labels and advertising of such plant-based products can however neither compare itself to meat or poultry, nor represent itself as similar. This includes statements, but also any graphical presentations.

For example, naming the animal species or meat cuts on the label and/or advertising of a product that has been shaped or formulated to look like a meat product or meat cut would not be considered compliant for products that are not labelled "simulated".

Claims such as "vegetarian", "veggie", "plant-based" can be made, provided they are not used in conjunction with terminology that promotes the product as equivalent to meat. For example, the name "vegetarian chicken nugget" or "plant-based drumstick" would not be considered compliant as it implies that the food has appearance or that it resembles a meat or poultry product. This is perhaps inconsistent with the permissibility of the descriptive terms we previously described, such as "burger" and "sausage".

This update from the CFIA is a promising nod in the direction of adapting labelling requirements to reflect current plant-based industry realities.

The Fasken Agribusiness team remains ready to guide you through food compliance laws.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.