Court case finally stops removal of meat substitutes from shop shelves

A court case has finally put a stop to government removing meat substitutes from shop shelves where producers use the same descriptive words as for meat products, such as ‘burger’, ‘sausage’ and ‘nugget’.

The Johannesburg High Court has reviewed and set aside the instruction to seize meat substitutes or as it is called in the industry, analogue products, from retail outlets after the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa (CGCSA) was forced to urgently seek an interdict to stop the Food Safety Agency (FSA) contracted to do the work from seizing meat analogue products from the shelves of retailers around the country.

Neo Momodu, CGCSA executive head for legal regulatory and stakeholder engagement, says the matter related to the treatment of meat analogue products (products with the aesthetic qualities of meat, but made from non-meat ingredients) by the FSA due to the naming conventions adopted for non-meat products.

The FSA was directed by the executive officer for Agricultural Product Standards and the minister of the department of land reform and rural development.

ALSO READ: Plant-based ‘meat products’ will not be taken off shelves on Monday

Government wanted to prohibit use of generic product names

“The FSA and the executive officer wanted to prohibit the use of certain generic product names for meat analogue products, where the names were similar to the product names of certain processed meat products and seize any meat analogue products that used of these generic product names,” Momodu says.

“The CGCSA successfully reviewed and set aside the executive officer’s directive prohibiting meat analogue products from using naming conventions similar to those used for processed meat products and authorising the seizure of any meat analogue products which use the similar naming convention, as well as the subsequent decision to seize such products without a warrant, ostensibly in terms of section 8 of the Agricultural Products Standards Act  119 of 1990.”

Momodu says this meant that the non-meat products remained on the shelves and will now stay on the shelves.

The CGCSA believed that the directive issued by the department to FSA was not in line with the provisions of the Act because there was no provision in the regulations which entitled the FSA or anyone else for that matter to inspect, classify or otherwise regulate meat analogues since these products are expressly excluded from existing regulations.

ALSO READ: Vegan burgers are here to stay

CGCSA was right about its interpretation of law on meat substitutes

“It was therefore unclear what legal or other instrument was planned to be used to enforce the seizures. The CGCSA was found to be correct in its interpretation of the law and through its actions, ensured that South African meat analogues or plant-based product consumers were not prejudiced by having diverse product offerings removed from the shelves.”

Momodu says the CGCSA welcomes the decision to set aside the department’s directive and says it is a collective victory for the non-meat sector, which is a growing source for alternative plant-based food products, as well as a source of employment throughout the value chain.

“The CGCSA hopes that with this decision the department will consider the development of regulations applicable to non-meat products as this development had already received 85% of sector support.

“This will further support the growth of a sector that has become an increasingly important source of alternative food for South Africans who have chosen a plant based diet. It is also a growing provider of employment opportunities and contributing to economic growth.”

ALSO READ: Three truths about the plant-based alternatives market

Minister says it was a settlement between all parties

Reggie Ngcobo, media liaison officer for the minister, says the decision of the court came about as a result of a settlement arrived at between the CGCSA and the minister and other respondents.

“The court order provides the needed opportunity for affected stakeholders to engage in the development or enhancement of a regulatory framework that would remove any misinterpretation of the existing regulation in relation to the sale of processed meat and raw processed meat products.”

He says the department is also alive to the fact there is an urgent need to develop regulations relating to non-meat products which will require compositional standards and a unique naming convention suited to these products and therefore, affected stakeholders are encouraged to make appropriate proposals in this regard.