First Greggs, now Oatly: Why ‘plant based’ brands are coming under fire
For much of the past decade, plant-based food brands rode a powerful wave of cultural momentum. Environmental concerns, changing dietary habits and investor enthusiasm combined to propel meat- and dairy-free alternatives from niche health-food aisles into the mainstream.
The language used by such brands followed a pattern of presenting their offerings as logical alternatives to meat or dairy-based products. Oat milk became an enduring cultural phenomenon, whilst vegan sausage rolls (like those sold by highstreet mainstay Greggs) and plant-based burgers enjoyed similar popularity.
Now, that language is under increasing pressure.
The UK Supreme Court’s ruling against Oatly’s ‘Post Milk Generation’ trademark is the latest example of a broader shift in which plant-based brands are facing scrutiny not just over performance and profitability, but over how they present themselves to consumers.
Taken together with tightening regulations around food labelling and a wave of commercial failures across the sector, the ruling signals that the plant-based category is entering a period of correction legally, commercially and culturally.
A legal challenge to the language of alternatives
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Oatly’s trademark incorporating the word ‘milk’ breached a 2013 Common Market regulation reserving dairy terminology for products derived from animal milk, unless the term clearly describes a characteristic of the product.
In this case, the court found that the phrase ‘Post Milk Generation’ did not clearly communicate that the product was milk-free, instead referring indirectly to a demographic or lifestyle position.
The judgment extends scrutiny beyond product names to marketing language itself. A slogan, even when not describing the product directly, can still fall within regulatory scope if it risks ambiguity.
For plant-based brands, many of which built their identity around challenging traditional food categories, that creates a new legal tension. The entire category relies on comparison and on helping consumers understand unfamiliar products through familiar terminology.
But regulators are increasingly uncomfortable with that overlap.
Gill Dennis, intellectual property expert at specialist law firm Pinsent Masons, notes that the ruling reinforces existing advertising guardrails while going further by confirming that trademarks themselves can be challenged if they risk misleading consumers. Pinsent Masons added that, while the case concerned trademark registrability, it’s likely to influence how brands deploy slogans and positioning more broadly.
In practical terms, this means plant-based brands may need to rethink how closely they define themselves against the foods they seek to replace.
Subscribe to Grocery Gazette for free
Sign up here to get the latest grocery and food news each morning
From disruption to regulation
The legal pressures arrive just as the plant-based sector faces a harsher commercial reality.
After years of rapid expansion, several high-profile vegan and alternative protein businesses have collapsed or entered administration. Vegan Finest Foods, the Dutch company behind plant-based seafood brand Zeastar, declared bankruptcy in 2025 amid falling demand.
UK-based Meatless Farm entered administration in 2023 before being rescued by VFC, while Heather Mills’ VBites suffered a similar fate. Plant & Bean, a major manufacturer supplying meat-free products, also fell into administration, and Lewis Hamilton-backed Neat Burger closed multiple UK locations following significant losses.
These failures reflect a spate of structural pressures across the category.
Inflation and rising ingredient costs have pushed many plant-based products into premium pricing territory at precisely the moment consumers became more price sensitive. During the cost-of-living crisis, shoppers increasingly reverted to cheaper, familiar staples. At the same time, retailers began trimming underperforming ranges as sales growth stalled.
What had initially looked like explosive, inevitable growth has instead revealed the characteristics of a classic market cycle, being rapid expansion, over-investment, saturation and consolidation.
The end of the ‘gold rush’ phase
The plant-based boom of the late 2010s was fuelled as much by capital as by consumer demand. Investors poured money into brands promising disruption of traditional agriculture and food production, often prioritising scale and visibility over profitability.
That environment has changed dramatically. Funding has tightened, and investors now expect viable margins and sustainable growth rather than rapid expansion alone.
As weaker players exit the market, the sector is undergoing what industry observers increasingly describe as a shakeout rather than a collapse. Demand for plant-based options has not disappeared, but instead normalised into the new status quo. As such growth expectations have recalibrated.
Politics, protection and the battle over definitions
Agricultural groups across Europe have long argued that allowing plant-based products to use terms associated with meat or dairy unfairly trades on the reputation of traditional industries. Efforts to restrict terminology have gained traction in Brussels, where lawmakers have periodically debated banning meat-related terms for vegan products.
That tension is now visible in Northern Ireland, where EU proposals could require meat-free products to abandon familiar descriptors such as sausage rolls or burgers in favour of neutral alternatives like ‘tubes’ or ‘discs’. Because of the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland remains aligned with certain EU food labelling rules, potentially creating a regulatory divergence within the UK itself.
For manufacturers, diverging naming rules across markets complicate packaging, marketing and distribution strategies, adding further pressure to already squeezed margins.
A category redefining itself
The underlying issue is that plant-based food has outgrown its challenger phase. Early success relied on positioning products as direct substitutes for meat and dairy, using familiar language to reduce friction for consumers trying something new.
But as the category matures, regulators are pushing for clearer distinctions between analogy and equivalence. The question is no longer whether consumers understand what oat milk or vegan sausage rolls are, but whether regulatory frameworks written around traditional agriculture can accommodate products defined by function rather than origin.
Oatly argues that restrictions on terminology benefit incumbent dairy producers and risk stifling competition. Regulators counter that clarity protects consumers and ensures fair competition.
Both arguments reflect a deeper tension, that food innovation is currently moving faster than the law that governs the sector.
