This week, the European Parliament voted to support a ban on using meat-related terms like “burger”, “steak” and “sausage” for plant-based products. The reason is simple: to ensure transparency and prevent consumers from being misled by names that suggest something they are not. Whether you agree with it or not, the principle is clear: words matter. What something is called influences how we understand it, how we value it, and ultimately how we choose it.
That same reasoning prompts an important question for another natural material facing similar confusion: leather.
In several countries, the use of the word “leather” for plastic-based materials is already prohibited. Italy has introduced clear legislation reserving the term exclusively for materials made from animal hides. France has taken similar steps, ensuring that only genuine leather can carry the name. Even outside Europe, countries such as Brazil and Mexico have adopted rules that protect the term. These regulations recognise the importance of linguistic honesty in safeguarding traditional industries and maintaining consumer trust.
Yet despite this, we still see the word “leather” being used across Europe to describe materials that contain no leather at all. They are often made from fossil-based plastics or coated textiles and then marketed under names such as “vegan leather”, “eco leather” or “plant leather”. These words sound appealing, but they disguise a very different story. They describe materials derived from oil and chemicals, with a lifespan and recyclability far removed from the natural origin and circular potential of genuine leather.
This poses a significant challenge for both transparency and sustainability communication. When a fossil-based imitation uses the same word as a natural, renewable material, it distorts facts and hampers informed decision-making. Genuine leather is a by-product of the food industry and a natural material whose carbon footprint comes from the grass cattle consume, not from oil wells. It is renewable, durable, repairable, and recyclable in ways that synthetic leathers simply are not. Its performance and longevity make it a vital part of a circular economy, helping to keep materials in use for longer. When oil-based materials use the same terminology, it blurs that distinction and misleads consumers who are trying to make responsible choices.
That same reasoning prompts an important question for another natural material facing similar confusion: leather.
Consumers deserve clarity. Just as the EU is now working to protect the definition of “meat”, there is a strong case for safeguarding the meaning of “leather”. Doing so would not only prevent misleading claims, but also assist drivers, designers, and car manufacturers in making more informed and responsible choices. Additionally, it would reward brands that invest in traceability, responsible sourcing, and certified material stewardship, rather than allowing imitation materials to benefit from the same trusted terminology.
Imagine an EU-wide regulation that reserved “leather” exclusively for genuine material derived from animal hides. Every buyer selecting an interior could immediately understand what they are purchasing, whether it’s leather or a synthetic imitation. This clarity would foster trust and strengthen the relationship between car brands and their customers. It would also create a level playing field across markets, ensuring consistent communication in every European language and jurisdiction.
The automotive industry, in particular, would benefit. As brands compete on design, comfort, and sustainability, consistent and truthful terminology is vital. Drivers increasingly want to know what is inside their vehicles, how it was made, and how long it will last. The ability to use the word “leather” confidently, and to distinguish it clearly from plastics and coated fabrics, would help consumers make decisions based on substance rather than marketing spin.
The European Parliament’s decision demonstrates that the EU is committed to addressing misleading terminology in the food sector. Applying the same approach to materials would foster a wider culture of clarity and responsibility. If words like “steak” and “burger” are worth safeguarding, then so is “leather”. The term embodies heritage, craftsmanship, and verifiable environmental credentials supported by lifecycle data.
Leather deserves recognition for what it truly is: a natural, responsible material shaped through centuries of expertise, not a synthetic imitation made from oil. Clear language helps consumers make better choices, manufacturers communicate with integrity, and society move closer to a truly transparent circular economy.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Your e-mail is only used exclusively for our newsletter and will not be shared with third parties.
