What products can be called “cheese”? Raising the possibility of a constitutional debate by invoking its freedom of expression, a Montreal vegan food company is attacking a regulation that restricts the use of the word “cheese” to products made from animal milk – the preventing him from giving this name to his own, which are made from nuts. A first court decision handed down this week begins to question the regulations in force in a rapidly changing food industry.
Rawesome’s various vegan products can be found on grocery store shelves. The City of Montreal nabbed her in 2018 and fined her for her “non-dairy cashew cream cheese.” Because to be able to write “cheese” on the packaging of a product, federal regulations provide that it must result from “the coagulation of milk” and follow a very specific manufacturing process.
It is therefore not possible for the Montreal company to respect it: its cheese does not contain any animal substance – this is moreover its raison d’être – and its manufacturing process is of course different.
A first legal victory
Rawesome scored a first victory this week: she was acquitted on appeal of the criminal offense stemming from breaching the rules. “This is very good news,” reacted M.e Natalia Manole, the company’s lawyer. “It has been recognized that the regulations do not apply to the products it manufactures,” she reports, adding that this is “the first court decision in Canada currently on the subject”.
But his battle is not over. Rawesome has already sued for a broader, nationwide judgment that will exempt plant-based products from the application of the cheese regulations. If the court refuses, she intends to challenge the constitutionality of the settlement by invoking her freedom of expression and the freedom of conscience of consumers, both protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The food regulation “interferes with the rights of consumers who seek plant-based products, in accordance with their values”, can we read in the procedure. It also prevents them from receiving food information in terms they are familiar with and understand, Rawesome alleges.
In a summary of their defence, the federal government and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) argue that their mission is to ensure food safety. For this reason, it is prohibited to sell a product that can be confused with another that is subject to a manufacturing standard.
But there is no possible confusion for the consumer, retorts Camille Labchuk, the principal director of the Animal Justice organization, which obtained the right to intervene in the dispute in order to shed particular light on the judge who will decide. the case. People aren’t misled: They actively seek out vegan products for different reasons, like to fight animal cruelty on farms, because of food allergies, or to protect the planet, she explains.
According to her, the fine imposed on Rawesome is part of a broader trend of regulators going after vegan companies – plant-based “milks” and “meats” are also targeted –, putting them in a disadvantageous position compared to other food producers.
Most of the time, companies comply with regulatory requirements and modify their packaging, says Ms.me Labchuk. This explains the names “almond drinks” and “vegetable oatmeal delight”, instead of the words milk and yogurt.
In its proceedings, Rawesome indicates that it will ask the Court to rule on the reason why the word cheese should continue to be reserved for one type of product: “Is it in the interest of consumers or in the interest of the dairy industry? »
The latter is very powerful and lobbies the government to keep the regulations in place, as they are terribly worried about the decline of the industry, as millennials and Gen Zers drink less cow’s milk, underline Mme Labchuk.
In competition ?
Traditional industries see a competitor and are looking to protect their “declining” market share, says Jordan LeBel, full professor of food marketing at Concordia University. And one of their ways of reacting is to invoke the regulatory framework.
Vegan food manufacturers counter by pointing out that the regulation dates back to 1979 — in short, from another era, when all cheeses were made from cow’s or goat’s milk. Veganism was “almost non-existent” then, says Rawesome.
Industry “reacts quickly” and innovates, but regulators are slower to adapt, as they wait for evidence on new products to assess their long-term impacts, the professor points out.
And why not use the word “falsemage”, as some have done, and thus avoid regulatory wrath? Because the owner of Rawesome refuses to say that his product is “fake”, responds Me Manol. “For him, it’s a real cheese”, “which has the same taste and the same texture” and which is used in the same way on bagels and pizza. Consumers also commonly use the terms “vegan cheese” or “non-dairy cheese”, insists Rawesome.
It’s also because of a “very powerful” psychological phenomenon that assigning a category to a product helps the consumer process information, says Professor LeBel. The company that offers an alternative product is familiar with the concept and will position itself in relation to the starting category, to give the consumer a ” script » which he recognizes. “Calling it ‘cheese’ immediately helps explain to the consumer that it melts on the pizza, that it’s served as an aperitif,” he says.
“Plant-based food is here to stay, and food regulators need to be on their time and stop unconstitutionally targeting companies leading food innovation,” pleads Animal Justice.