Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 was published in the Official Journal on 29 July 2026. It inserts a new Part Ia into Annex VII of the Common Market Organisation regulation reserving the word “meat” and 31 named terms — from “beef” to “liver” — for meat products. Article 5 sets the application date for that part at 19 August 2029, three years after the regulation entered into force, and Article 4 lets non-conforming stock made or imported before that date sell through until it is exhausted or 19 August 2032, whichever comes first.
That is the settled part. Six weeks earlier, on 22 July, MEPs on the Agriculture Committee tabled amendments to a different CMO file — the post-2027 reform, COM(2025) 553 — that would put a second, overlapping list into the same Annex. The Commission’s own text in that file already carries a 29-name list with a 12-month application clock. The amendments would extend it to “burger”, “sausage”, “nugget”, “schnitzel”, “ham” and up to 21 processed-meat names, catch hybrid meat-and-plant products, and let each member state add its own reserved words on top.
Trade coverage has treated this as a political rerun. For a formulator or a label-compliance lead it is something more concrete: two legal instruments with different lists, different scopes and different clocks, both aimed at the same product denominations. This piece assembles all three lists side by side from the primary documents, and reads what a listed company is already telling its investors about them.
What is now law: 31 terms, one date, one exit
The reserved list in Part Ia, point 3 of Annex VII to Regulation 1308/2013, as inserted by Regulation 2026/1739, reads in full:
| Group | Reserved terms (31) |
|---|---|
| Species and categories (12) | beef, veal, pork, poultry, chicken, turkey, duck, goose, lamb, mutton, ovine, goat |
| Cuts and anatomical terms (17) | drumstick, tenderloin, sirloin, flank, loin, ribs, shoulder, shank, chop, wing, breast, thigh, brisket, ribeye, T-bone, rump, bacon |
| Not in the Commission’s July 2025 list (2) | steak, liver |
Four features of the enacted text matter more than the list itself.
Scope. The reservation applies “at all stages of marketing” and covers “products listed in Annex I to the TFEU as well as food products not listed in that Annex” — so it reaches processed foods, not just primary agricultural products. Fishery and aquaculture products are carved out, as are products the Commission later lists in a delegated act.
Cultivated products are named. Point 4 says the term “meat” and the 31 terms “shall not be used to designate food consisting of, isolated from or produced from cell culture or tissue culture derived from animals, plants, micro-organisms, fungi or algae within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283”. That is the novel-food definition, so a cultivated chicken product that clears EFSA cannot be sold as “chicken” in the EU after August 2029. We covered the approval-side gap in our EFSA timing analysis; the naming side is now fixed in law before any product has been approved.
The derogation route. A new subparagraph in Article 78(3) empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts “granting derogations allowing the use of designations reserved for products derived from meat, for other products the exact nature of which is clear due to an established long-term use and does not cause any possible confusion to the consumer”. The recital gives the reasoning: names of products “not derived from meat, whose exact nature is clear due to an established long-term use” should be listable. No such act exists yet. The list of what escapes the reservation is therefore still to be written.
Composite products. Point 5 preserves the terms for composite products “of which no part takes or is intended to take the place of any meat constituent and of which meat is an essential part”. A hybrid product that blends beef with plant or mycoprotein to replace part of the meat is, on the plain wording, outside that protection. We looked at the pricing logic of those blends in our hybrid-ingredient piece; the labelling exposure is now a second variable.
Practical consequence: the 2029 date is the one to plan packaging cycles around, but the Article 78(3) delegated act is the document that decides whether a long-established plant-based name survives. Nothing in the regulation obliges the Commission to adopt it, or sets a deadline.
The second file: a 29-name list already in the Commission’s text
Regulation 2026/1739 came out of COM(2024) 577, the December 2024 proposal on “the strengthening of the position of farmers in the food supply chain”. The reserved-terms provision was not in the Commission’s text; Parliament inserted it in October 2025 and it survived the trilogue.
The post-2027 CMO proposal, COM(2025) 553 of 16 July 2025, is a separate instrument and it does contain a reserved-terms provision in the Commission’s own draft. Annex I, point (4) of the proposal inserts a “PART Ia” headed “Meat and meat products designations”, with a 29-name list running from “Beef” to “Bacon” — the enacted list minus “steak” and “liver” — and defines “meat” as “exclusively the edible parts of an animal”. Article 3 of the proposal says Annex I, point (4) “shall apply from [12 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation]”.
So the same Annex VII, Part Ia would be written twice. The rapporteur, Eric Sargiacomo (S&D, appointed 11 March 2026), noticed. Amendment 184 of his 10 June draft report deletes the Commission’s Part Ia in its entirety — the natural response once the other file had reached agreement. Amendments 1578, 1579 and 1580, tabled separately by Maria Noichl, by Anja Hazekamp and Sebastian Everding, and by Cristina Guarda for the Greens, do the same.
The July amendments from the other side of the committee do the opposite. They keep Part Ia and enlarge it.
What the 22 July amendments would add
Amendments 1422–1598 (PE791.865) were tabled on 22 July 2026 to the Sargiacomo report. We read the full document. The provisions that touch Part Ia are these:
| Amendment | Signatories | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| 1555 | Târziu, Buda, Teodorescu (ECR) | Reserved names “shall include, in particular: steak, escalope, sausage, burger, hamburger, bacon, ham, ribs, fillet, loin, breast and other equivalent meat-related names” |
| 1577 | Crespo Díaz and five EPP members (Spain) | Reserves traditionally recognised names including “meat”, “rabbit”, “ham”, “sausage”, “hamburger”, “meatball”, “salami”; Commission may update the list “respecting the linguistic, cultural and gastronomic specificities of the Member States” |
| 1586 | Buda, Motreanu, Nascimento Cabral, Kefalogiannis, Crespo Díaz (EPP) | Adds roast, rabbit, burger, sausage, ham, salami, meatballs to the 29-name list |
| 1587 | Céline Imart (EPP) | Adds steak, liver, rabbit |
| 1588 | Deloge, Pennelle, Stancanelli, Dömötör, Borrás Pabón (Patriots/ECR) | New point 3a: 20 processed-meat names from burger to fillet, “amongst others, as well as all traditional designations commonly used for processed meat products”, plus a clause preserving national protection measures |
| 1589 | Céline Imart (EPP) | New point 3a: 21 names — burger, hamburger, sausage, chorizo, salami, pepperoni, mortadella, ham, meat ball, minced meat, patty, nugget, escalope, schnitzel, lardon, meat loaf, black pudding, white pudding, pastrami, fillet, liver — plus the same national-measures clause |
| 1591 | van Leeuwen, Buda, Imart, Cassart, Târziu, Nascimento Cabral | The designations “shall not be used for products derived from cell culture, hybrid products consisting of a mixture of animal and plant proteins, or products of exclusively non-animal origin” |
| 1592, 1593 | Târziu et al.; Buda et al. | Names not to be used for products that do not contain meat, “including cell-cultured products”; “Meat denominations cannot be used for laboratory-grown meat” |
| 1581, 1582 | Sebastian Everding (The Left) | The counter-proposal: customary terms allowed where accompanied “in the same field of vision and with comparable prominence” by “vegan”, “plant-based” or equivalent, and the Commission may set legibility requirements by implementing act |
Three things in that table are new relative to the enacted law, and none of them is the word “burger”.
The first is the national clause. Amendments 1588 and 1589 both end: “This list is without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to maintain or introduce additional national protection measures for other meat-related names, in compliance with Union law.” The Court of Justice held in Protéines France (C-438/23, 4 October 2024) that, absent EU or national legal names, a member state could not prohibit meat terms on plant-based products. This clause would supply the missing authorisation. A product compliant in one member state could then be non-compliant across a border, which is the outcome the single-market harmonisation of Part Ia was meant to prevent.
The second is hybrids. Amendment 1591 names “hybrid products consisting of a mixture of animal and plant proteins” explicitly. The enacted text only reaches them through the composite-product wording in point 5. A blended burger with 50% beef would lose “burger” and “beef” alike.
The third is the “amongst others” drafting in 1588 and 1589. A closed list of 31 words is something a label can be checked against. A list that also covers “all traditional designations commonly used for processed meat products” is not.
Practical consequence: if the committee adopts any of 1586 to 1591 on 1 December, the operative question stops being “is my product name on the list” and becomes “which member state am I selling in, and what has it added”. Budget for the second question now; it is cheaper than a 27-market relabel later.
Two clocks
The application dates diverge, and the divergence is the point most coverage has missed.
| Instrument | Status | Reserved-terms clock |
|---|---|---|
| Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 | In force since 18 August 2026 | Part Ia applies from 19 August 2029; sell-through to 19 August 2032 |
| COM(2025) 553, Commission text | Awaiting AGRI decision | Annex I point (4) applies 12 months after entry into force |
| COM(2025) 553 with Imart/Deloge amendments | Tabled 22 July 2026 | Same 12-month clock, applied to an enlarged list |
If the post-2027 CMO regulation were adopted with any version of Part Ia intact and entered into force in, say, mid-2027, its list would apply from mid-2028 — more than a year before the list Parliament and Council just agreed. The transitional sell-through in Article 4 of Regulation 2026/1739 is tied to “the date of application of the designation rules set out therein”, not to the second regulation. Whether stock produced under the 2029 rules would be protected against an earlier 2028 rule is a question neither text answers.
Food Ingredients First reports AGRI examined the amendments on 2 September and is expected to vote on 1 December, with a plenary vote in early 2027. The Legislative Observatory lists the file as “Awaiting committee decision” with no vote date entered.
A listed company has already priced the risk
Beyond Meat’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 27 June 2026, filed on 6 August, spends several paragraphs on this. It records that “On June 10, 2026, the rapporteur for the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development published a draft report recommending the deletion of the proposed Part Ia”, then that “amendments have reportedly been proposed seeking to reinstate the meat designation provisions and extend the restrictions to additional terms, including ‘burger’ and ‘sausage’, which are not reserved under Regulation (EU) 2026/1739”.
It also discloses enforcement that has nothing to do with Brussels. The filing says Belgian authorities “have initiated proceedings against a retailer in Belgium selling Beyond Meat products, challenging the use of terms such as ‘gehakt’ (‘mince’) and ‘burger’ for plant-based alternatives”, relying on a Royal Decree of 8 March 1985 on minced meat; the case was under review by the Belgian food safety agency in March 2025 and “no further procedural steps or decisions have been communicated”. Separately, a warning letter from the Dutch food authority over “gehakt” led the company to “amend our labelling voluntarily going forward”.
The commercial exposure is stated in the same filing: international retail net revenue rose $2.6 million, or 16.5%, in the quarter, “primarily driven by increased sales of burger products and chicken products in European markets and the U.K.” Its lead trademarks are Beyond Burger and Beyond Sausage. Both words are on the Imart list.
Practical consequence: the Belgian and Dutch actions show that national enforcement is already happening under pre-existing decrees, before either EU list applies. The amendments’ national clause would legitimise that pattern rather than create it.
The opposing case
The producers’ side is well organised and its arguments deserve stating properly.
The NoConfusion coalition, coordinated by WePlanet, says it represents “more than 600 companies, retailers, investors, and consumer and environmental organisations from 22 EU countries”. Its open letter to EPP chair Manfred Weber calls the 31-term compromise “hard-won” and says the rapporteur “has been clear that she regards the exclusion of ‘burger’, ‘sausage’ and ‘nuggets’ as unfinished business”. It cites a German industry association estimate of “around €250 million for the German industry alone” for the restrictions already adopted, and “Over 340,000” petition signatures. Those are advocacy figures; we have not seen the BALPro methodology and treat the number as the coalition’s claim, not ours.
The meat side’s case is in the recitals of the enacted regulation, which are now law. The recital preceding the one on derogations says the livestock sector “is required to meet high production standards that are not always rewarded by the market”, that “Meat-related terms often carry cultural and historical significance”, and that reserving them serves “consumers seeking a specific nutritional content traditionally associated with meat products”. The Commission’s July 2025 proposal uses near-identical language in its own recital 16. Whatever one thinks of the confusion evidence, the legislature has now stated a rationale that does not depend on confusion at all.
There is also a procedural argument for the amendments that the coalition does not engage with: Part Ia in COM(2025) 553 is Commission text, not a parliamentary insertion. Deleting it requires a majority; keeping it does not.
What we could not establish
- The vote date. Food Ingredients First reports a 1 December AGRI vote as “expected”. The Legislative Observatory shows no scheduled vote. We could not confirm the date from a parliamentary source.
- The plenary vote of 8 October 2025. Green Queen reports it as 355–247. The Observatory records the decision (T10-0214/2025) but we did not retrieve the roll-call and have not verified the numbers.
- When the trilogue agreement was reached. Beyond’s 10-Q and Food Ingredients First date it to 5 March 2026; Green Queen’s 27 August report says February. The Observatory records committee approval of the agreed text on 8 April 2026 and Council publication of the text, per the 10-Q, on 19 March. We use 5 March and flag the discrepancy.
- The date Parliament adopted its first-reading position. The Observatory says 16 June 2026; the NoConfusion letter says 17 June. We use the Observatory.
- Whether the Commission intends to propose the Article 78(3) derogation list, and when. We found no published timetable.
- The interaction between the two instruments’ transitional provisions, discussed above. Neither text addresses it, and we found no Commission or Council statement that does.
What to watch
- 1 December 2026, AGRI vote. If amendments 1586, 1588, 1589 or 1591 pass in committee, the enlarged list is live for trilogue. If Amendment 184 passes, Part Ia leaves the post-2027 file and the 31-term list of 2029 stands alone.
- The national-measures clause. Its survival or deletion is a cleaner signal than the word list. It determines whether the outcome is one rulebook or 27.
- The Article 78(3) delegated act. Its publication would fix which established plant-based names escape. Its continued absence into 2027 would mean the 2029 date arrives with no exemption list.
- Belgium. Any decision in the “gehakt”/“burger” proceedings Beyond disclosed would show how a member state enforces meat names under a 1985 decree before the EU list applies.