Navigating Regulatory Riptide: How Businesses Can Avoid Being Cut Adrift When Caught in Legislative Undertow
When regulation overreaches, it doesn’t just slow progress, it can sink it. Broad legislative strokes often capture companies never meant to be in scope, pulling them into compliance, scrutiny, and public backlash they were never prepared for. The result is operational drag, lost market confidence, and strategic paralysis.
For leadership teams, the question isn’t just how to respond when your business is caught in the regulatory wake, but how to see it coming. And have a voice in shaping what comes next.
Right now, the plant-based meat alternative industry is facing an existential crisis, but not for the reasons you might think. According to a recent report in The Grocer, sales have plummeted £30 million in the past year, with major brands like Quorn Foods and Linda McCartney's haemorrhaging market share. And this in the context of the trend towards meat reducing demonstrably going up. So what's going on?
The culprit isn't taste, price, or even consumer fatigue, it's a classification system that's become a blunt instrument wielding disproportionate influence over public perception and policy.
The ultra-processed food (UPF) label, rooted in the NOVA classification system, has become the scarlet letter of modern nutrition. Intended to understand shifting dietary patterns at a population level, it was never designed to evaluate individual foods' nutritional merit, yet that's precisely how it's being wielded today. Under its broad umbrella, plant-based meat alternatives sit uncomfortably alongside sugary cereals, fizzy drinks, and processed meats - a categorisation that reveals more about the limitations of our food classification systems than the actual health implications of these products.
"Survey data shows that 54% of Europeans avoid UPFs, and this includes plant-based proteins, based purely on processing concerns.”
The system's crude four-category framework treats a @Beyond Burger or @THIS sausage the same as a packet of crisps, simply because both undergo industrial processing and contain ingredients unfamiliar to home cooks. Survey data shows that 54% of Europeans avoid UPFs, and this includes plant-based proteins, based purely on processing concerns. But plant-based meat alternatives consistently outperform their animal counterparts on key health metrics, representing a triumph of perception over clear evidence.
The most damaging aspect of this crisis is that virtually no one saw it coming. Plant-based companies, focused on perfecting taste profiles and scaling production, were blindsided by a regulatory framework that would fundamentally redefine their market positioning. The UPF classification crept up on an industry which spent years building credibility around health and sustainability benefits, only to find themselves lumped with the very processed foods they sought to replace.
“Companies which identify emerging classification threats can proactively distance their brands from damaging narratives before they crystallise in the public’s consciousness.”
This blind spot reveals a crucial truth: in today's regulatory landscape, early recognition isn't just advantageous, it's existential. Companies which identify emerging classification threats can proactively distance their brands from damaging narratives before they crystallise in the public’s consciousness. Those caught off-guard face the much harder task of rebuilding perception after the damage is done.
So how do we fix this? The solution requires a multi-pronged approach which addresses both immediate messaging challenges and long-term systemic change. First, companies need to engage at the policy level, ensuring their voices are heard in the rooms where classification frameworks are developed and refined. Having a seat at the table when evaluation criteria are established provides far more sustainable protection than reactive damage control after unfavourable classifications are locked in.
When consumers understand that their plant-based burger isn’t ‘ultra-processed’, they become advocates for more nuanced classification systems.”
Equally important is correcting the false narrative through strategic public engagement – not necessarily via expensive advertising campaigns, but through impactful conversations with consumers via trusted voices. This dual approach challenges both the simplistic equation of processing with harm, and harnesses public opinion to generate support for updating outdated regulatory frameworks. When consumers understand that their plant-based burger isn’t “ultra-processed,” they become advocates for more nuanced classification systems.
The companies which navigate this crisis successfully won't just defend their current products, they'll reshape the entire conversation around food, health, and sustainability for the next generation of innovations
The meat-free industry's £30 million decline isn't just a cautionary tale for the food aisle, it's a masterclass in how messaging can undermine complex solutions to multifaceted problems, and that’s a lesson for anyone, no matter the sector.
The companies that anticipate these shifts, and engage early to influence how their category is defined, won’t just protect their market, they’ll future-proof their relevance.
Mike Coppen-Gardner is the Founder and Chief Executive of SPQR.
Public Relevance™ helps businesses, brands and organisations turn insights into influence, and mobilises public opinion into commercial advantage.
