In its judgment, the Federal Supreme Court (the Court) dismissed the appeal of a food distributor against a judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau dated 21 May 2025, confirming that three vegan meat-alternative products marketed as "Salami", "Schinken" (ham) and "Mortadella" had been correctly found to infringe Swiss food labelling law.

The distributor sold plant-based products manufactured by a German producer under these designations. The Cantonal Laboratory of Thurgau objected to the labelling and ordered the packaging to be brought into compliance with Swiss food legislation. The distributor's appeals were dismissed at all cantonal instances, following which it appealed to the Court and sought, for the first time, party status for the producer.

The Court held that the latter request was inadmissible, as it had been raised for the first time before the Court. It further confirmed that mere indirect economic effects on the producer did not establish party status under federal law.

The central question was whether "Schinken", "Salami" and "Mortadella" listed in art. 9 para. 4 of the Ordinance on Foodstuffs of Animal Origin (VLtH) as substitutes for the defined meat-product designations under art. 9 para. 1 VLtH, could lawfully be used for vegan products. Referring to its recent leading case on vegan labelling (BGE 152 II 124), in which designations reserved for a product derived from a specific animal species under art. 9 para. 1 VLtH were held impermissible for vegan products under the prohibition of deceptive-labelling in art. 18 para. 1 of the Federal Act on Foodstuffs and Consumer Products (FSA), the Court held that the designation under art. 9 para. 4 VLtH had equivalent legal effect and were therefore subject to the same restriction, irrespective of the overall packaging design or the use of a "vegan" qualifier. By contrast, terms merely traditionally associated with animal-derived food but not constituting defined designations (e.g. "Wurst", "Steak") remained permissible provided that the plant-based nature of the product was clearly indicated. The Court found no additional guidance in EU law, noting that the CJEU had left such labelling to the discretion of Member States in the absence of harmonised terminology (Case C-438/23).

The Court further rejected the arguments that the measure disproportionately restricted economic freedom and that the cantonal proceedings had been excessively lengthy, holding that the latter objection was both belated and unfounded.

For more information, see here.