Imagine people ordering a "lentil burger", "soy burger", "plant burger", "bean burger", or "chickpea burger", and receiving a vegan meal.
Can you imagine how shocked and deceived, perhaps even violated they may feel? The horror!
Luckily the European Christian Democrats protected European citizens from this huge and common problem instead of, oh I dunno, helping European industry with the energy transition or end a genocide. They have their priorities straight here.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is another attempt by a panicked industry to slow down the transition to a slightly less cruel food production system and these politicians are earning some side money?
EDITED for tastefulness of words. The only words I changed are the only ones that OP quoted and responded to below. The rest of the message was ignored. I actually learned a valuable lesson today, thanks Felix!
Carry on supporting "plant mass murdering industry" a. k. a. "consumer deception industry" sweetie š¤£š¤£š¤£
Somehow industry producing plant pulp which looks like shit and taste the same way are hell bent on calling their inferior products the same as "animal slaughtering industry". Try to guess why. Oh, hold on, that requires more than a few brain cells and you are a vegan after all.
How have I insulted you now sweetie? I mean, "Vegan" can be perceived as an insult so I kind of get it - but surely not for yourself?
Regarding brain cells - that's a simple statement of fact. Vegan diet, especially not properly balanced, impacts mental health and intellectual capabilities.
I was going to disagree with you based on etymological pedantry, but it turns out the Old English "mete" just means "food" so now I have to agree with you based on etymological pedantry.
"Plant milk" could be a bit like "berry" though, in that as we have consolidated and rationalised our definitions it falls out of it. When we tried to come up with a clear idea of what a "berry" is we ended up excluding almost everything that has "berry" in the name. Like how tomatoes are fruits by the technical definition of a fruit.
Except for the fact that the reason plant milk is being excluded is entirely commercial lobbying, rather than a scientific or rational definition.
Fuck's sake, 2nd time that's happened to me in this thread. I thought steak should just be beef, but it turns out:
The word steak was written steke in Middle English, and comes from the mid-15th century Scandinavian word steik, related to the Old Norse steikja 'to roast on a stake', and so is related to the word stick or stake.
I don't even want to look up bacon now, I need to believe that it should just be pig.
early 14c., "meat from the back and sides of a hog" (originally either fresh or cured, but especially cured), from Old French bacon, from Proto-Germanic *bakkon "back meat" (source also of Old High German bahho, Old Dutch baken "bacon"), from the source of back (n.).
The terms burger and steak don't describe the contents of the food but the shape. And the word meat, in English, doesn't exclusively meant the flesh of an animal. So calling something vegan meat, or soy burger, is exactly the description a costumer would need. Anything else would be either a convoluted name or less descriptive.
and iirc he loves meat so yeah.
basically animals are put into concentration camp-like conditions, except they overfeed them, and then kill them in cruel ways and with horrifying efficiency.
Aight, if animal cruelty is no problem, fair. That's valid. We're all humans, after all.
So, I take it you then don't object to being stuffed with pesticides, herded with thousands of people in a crammed space, and transported off with a truck to slaughter, where you get stunned, electrically tortured, chopped and cut into bits, with your skin being used for leather?
Just want to let you know that the meat industry is doing exactly what people did to the Jews many years ago.
I followed your instructions and called it something different; animal-cruelty free meat. Why do you feel attacked for something that does not affect you in the slightest?
Again with the animal cruelty. This isn't about animal cruelty. I welcome lab grown meat, which is actually meat. I just don't understand why there is a need to imitate the meat industry. They can create new things, better things, and it doesn't have to be related to the meat industry at all. Now it's something similar tasting but not quite the same food. If it's labeled as something completely different maybe it would get more popular.
The closest one to taste like meat that I've tried is beyond burger, which in all fairness tasted like a terrible beef burger, while costing like a premium one and being uber processed.
Each one can do what they want, but I'll take a bean burger that doesn't pretend otherwise before any fake meat.
Well youāre not allowed to call it a ābean burgerā anymore cause that would be coNfUSInG according to the animal mass murder lobby.
Can you find a primary source for this? Because all I see is articles that may well be clickbait. I want to see what they actually voted on.
I think certain terms are definitively meat, eg steak, but saying a burger is exclusively meat is like saying a pizza must have plain tomato sauce.
In any case, this hasn't been finalised yet as the European Commission - the actual competent lawyers rather than populist representatives (who might not actually represent their voters) - have yet to have their say. I'd hope that common sense would withdraw "burger" from any law that comes out of this.
I guess it's a good thing then that no one will be allowed to buy the bean burger you just praised from anyone in Europe?
Imagine people ordering a "lentil burger", "soy burger", "plant burger", "bean burger", or "chickpea burger", and receiving a vegan meal. Can you imagine how shocked and deceived, perhaps even violated they may feel?
The horror! Luckily the European Christian Democrats protected European citizens from this huge and common problem instead of, oh I dunno, helping European industry with the energy transition or end a genocide. They have their priorities straight here.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is another attempt by the animal mass murder industry to slow down the transition to a slightly less cruel food production system and these politicians are earning some blood money?
It's not about accidentally eating vegetables, it's about products being marketed in a misleading way. If I order a pizza with bacon on it, I don't want turkey, let alone a vegetable substitute.
However many terms are already agnostic, eg pattie, burger; these kind of things should be allowed. Also, "cooks like ground beef" isn't a problem, however maybe the way the words highlight "ground beef" might be. Like, the "cooks from" and "made from plants" are white text on a light coloured background, as if to try and make it easier to miss.
There are already laws against intentionally misleading people with advertising. Done properly, this is just an extension of that, to counter businesses trying to get around the current law.
I have no problems with anything you say - as a vegetarian, Id also like to be able to distinguish between products and ensure Im getting plant based stuff.
However, you should keep in mind that this is not the actual intention of the meat industry pushing for this. Theyre just trying to fuck with the competition.
When has āburgerā or āsteakā ever exclusively meant meat from an animal? This sounds like political corruption to me. Somebody is getting paid for turning this linguistic gaslighting into law.
A āburgerā has always been a mince patty of any kind and a āsteakā is a thick slab of something. The default assumption may be meat, but it has never been exclusive.
Edit
OP appears to have a serious problem accepting facts. Itās disappointing given the number of upvotes Voyager shows for them. I suppose nobody is perfect.
I agree that burger has always been agnostic, but steak should really just be meat. Etymologically, it was always meat roasted on a stake. Similarly, bacon should just be a specific cut of pig meat, not turkey. Both of these are intentionally misleading marketing - with bacon it's even so when they're using different meats, let alone vegetables.
Intentionally misleading people through advertising, in order to get more sales, is wrong.
And don't get me started on American "biscuits" that are not cooked twice. They're savoury scones.
I mean... I kind of agree with you, but at the same time... Come on, the things have green packaging and "vegan" or "vegetarian" plastered all over the print. Not to mention they're being sold in separate sections in stores, not where the meat is.
You need to really not be paying attention to get "tricked" by this.
This is a photo of the actual product from the retailer website š Or perhaps you think the retailers falsify the photos of products they sell just for you?
Yeah but you shouldn't have to be ever-vigilant against advertising. The government is supposed to regulate against businesses trying to trick people.
Like the OP picture, the box says "cooks like ground beef", which is fine when you read it all, but the font colour is almost trying to hide "cooks like" such that at a glance you might only see "ground beef" and pick it by mistake. That's very borderline, at least.
And while major supermarkets have vegetarian sections, smaller shops might not have such an obvious separation. You can't justify the packaging by where the product might be shelved.
the font colour is almost trying to hide ācooks likeā such that at a glance you might only see āground beefā and pick it by mistake
Then regulate against that, not against calling them "burger patties", or something. I mean, the choice of the image is especially weird considering "burger patties" never mention meat specifically.
And while major supermarkets have vegetarian sections, smaller shops might not have such an obvious separation
They do, because you're not allowed to mix food products types in the EU. Meat MUST be separate from cheese, cheese MUST be separate from vegetables, etc.
Yes but are there regulations on meat being separated from meat substitutes? Would we even want that? I think it could be better to have all the burgers in one place, so long as I can clearly tell beef from pork from veggie. And should the laws on packaging rely on compliance with other laws? It's the other way around - if the packaging is clear and appropriate, where things are placed doesn't matter.
Cheese being separated from other things is more about hygeine. And even then, it isn't 100% - you can buy meatballs with cheese in them. Maybe there's some sterlisation requirement to make that okay? I don't know.
I agree that burger should absolutely not be regulated as a meat only product. Just like how a pizza doesn't have to have plain tomato sauce.
I did some digging to try and find a primary source, the actual vote is here (Ammendment 113, just search the page for "burger"). If you take burger and hamburger out of the list I'd have no issue.
Hopefully when the EC (ie the competent lawyers, rather than populist representatives) take their pass at this they'll trim the list down.
Yes but are there regulations on meat being separated from meat substitutes?
Yes, because meat substitutes are not meat, therefore they cannot be stored with meat.
Would we even want that?
We already have it.
I think it could be better to have all the burgers in one place, so long as I can clearly tell beef from pork from veggie
You already can. The veggies ones have big "veggie" letters on them.
And should the laws on packaging rely on compliance with other laws? Itās the other way around - if the packaging is clear and appropriate, where things are placed doesnāt matter.
The sanitary implications of meat stored with non-meat products has much farther reaching consequences than a random person going "ah, oops, I accidentally bought veggie burgers". Which, again, can only happen if they don't bother looking at the package they're grabbing.
And even then, it isnāt 100% - you can buy meatballs with cheese in them. Maybe thereās some sterlisation requirement to make that okay? I donāt know.
I'm not talking about ready-made meals or other meal types. I'm talking about "raw products". Things like "meatballs with cheese" are not a raw product and you won't find them in the meat fridge, they'll be with the frozen meals section - with the pizzas, fries, deep-fry veggies, etc.
You already can. The veggies ones have big āveggieā letters on them.
No, not always. The OP photo is a good example of this, it doesn't have any word starting with "veg" on the front. What clues there are are white text on a light colour background or vice versa, meanwhile the "meat words" are black text. The meat words are visually promoted, while the vegetarian stuff is drawn in such a way as to encourage you to miss it.
Iām not talking about ready-made meals or other meal types. Iām talking about āraw productsā. Things like āmeatballs with cheeseā are not a raw product and you wonāt find them in the meat fridge, theyāll be with the frozen meals section
That's kind of what I was getting at, raw cheese is probably the main concern (because cheese itself is something that has to go off in a controlled way). Also, I do know supermarkets that sell raw meatballs with cheese in them in the fridge section. They're really good, although best eaten soon after purchase...
I don't think there is actually any regulation (yet) that would stop a shop from putting meat products next to meat substitute products. Eg, putting meat free burgers in a burger section. And I don't think there should be.
If you do know of an actual regulation, rather than just assuming there is one, I'd like to see it.
After I posted this comment I looked up the etymology, the word "steak" literally comes from food being roasted on a stake. So, really, that should be the deciding factor - most steak we eat isn't technically steak because it's cooked in other ways.
Brazillian restaurants, the ones that come by with meat on a sword, should count as proper steak. Vegetables cooked in that manner could also be steak.
I'm throwing out the terms BURGR, SAUSGE, STEK as prior art so nobody can trademark them and everybody that produces vegetarian or vegan food can use them free of charge.
Some brands are already doing stuff like this. Here in Sweden we have "Ch*cken style", "Chick-un" etc. And some are pretty funny but does break these new shitty rules like "meat-free meatballs".
Because if something is meant to imitate something else, consumers looking for such a substitute product should have an easy means of finding it. The target demographic of these products is people looking to avoid meat, so manufacturers already have an incentive to label them as being meat-free. Making them use meaningless words will inevitably confuse consumers more than a prefix such as 'plant-based' would, in turn discouraging adoption of such products by curious consumers, exactly the intended effect of the meat lobby that pushed for inclusion of the provision in the first place.
Nah it was just a day for farmers to bitch and moan and get their way a bit with the European Parliament. Literally, almost everything they were voting on was farming related.
Damn I better go stockpile pea-based mince(d meat).
(If you haven't tried it before, seriously, do. There's so many (traditional) recipes with minced meat for which this is a 1:1 replacement, it opens up an entire new world of cooking for vegetarian/vegan kitchens.)
Well I think this law could be fine, depending on how far exactly it goes. I don't really think it's appropriate to call vegetarian products "bacon" or "steak", however "burger" is already generic enough (you can have a beef burger, chicken burger, or veggie burger). In the article image, it says "cooks like ground beef" which should also be ok. A "pattie" is also not necessarily a specific type of meat. Hell, I even take offense at "turkey bacon" - the point is that it is intentionally misleading.
Depends on how exactly it's presented. There's a fine line between saying the product is a substitute for something, and misleading people into thinking it is the thing. Like the OP picture, it says "cooks like ground beef", which is okay in text, but on the box "cooks like" is white text on a light colour background, as if to create the possibility of you glancing at the packaging and only seeing "ground beef".
If it's just "No Chicken", that's fine, but if it's like ^no^ CHICKEN then maybe not.
I sat down in a high volume bakery in a German pedestrian zone recently only to find that the chicken sandwich I had picked out was really some kind of fake cardboard plant meat. I have nothing against that sort of thing and I'm open to trying new things, but they used some misleading terminology to make it sound like meat. I remember being irritated at the time and I'm glad the politicians have this issue in their sights. Having said that, I'm baffled this is important enough in contrast to the rest of world events to actually warrant attention and action.
Pretty sure it was "Backwerk". I would also be surprised if it wasn't in the small print on the sign or something. The point for me was that I should have made that choice consciously, but due to the "meaty" language and my hurried state, I was misled into thinking it was meat. Consumers should know what they are getting based on how it is described and I found the description lacking in specificity. Apparently this is not enough for me to complain until I saw an article on Lemmy about the EU addressing it. :-)
Backwerk has very clearly signed vegan sandwiches. I'm sure it could happen if you're just absent minded buying something without paying attention. But then don't get mad if you buy the wrong thing... Like when you buy a schnitzel you don't know what's inside unless you fucking read the label.
So that I don't have to keep spending ten minutes triple-checking packages of food every time I go shopping, ever since the time I double-checked that I was buying actual mozzarella, only to find that my cheesy bread tasted like plastic that evening due to misleading packaging and small print.
I want to be able to walk into the store, blindly grab packages that say "burgers" and "cheese" without having to take ten minutes to scour them, and not be blindsided when I get home by what I believe amounts to false advertising. Not to mention this will make it less likely that people morally or ethically opposed to meat and dairy products accidentally purchase those products.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it honestly seems like a purely positive change with no downsides whatsoever, other than to vegans mad that meat and dairy exist at all. The products will all still be available to buy, but will now be less likely to confuse consumers.
Edit: [Here's] a great example from lower in the thread. You either have to have specific cultural knowledge that "Beyond" means "no meat", or you have to check the actual ingredients.
Instead of this intentionally misleading garbage, you could have the large print actually say something like "PLANT PATTY", and then the small print say "Compare to a chicken burger patty!" or something like that.
Idk, ive never seen plant based food that's ambigious over whether or not it contains meat. Thats kind of the selling point of the product after all.
It feels like this law is just to undermine the competition.
I'm sorry, maybe your area is different and the packaging doesn't show "plant based", "soy", "oat milk" etc prominently. But that's just so far outside my experience I can't imagine it.
I belive they used to be sold in one of upmarket shops in the UK. I don't see them anymore on their website so they probably gone. But see another example - no mention these are vegan. In my opinion this is clearly misleading.
Sure.
Though, whether or not people care if there is any meat in "sausage" is an open question.
"Sausage" kind of just means "tube shaped savoury food". I was expecting some specific meat to be mentioned.
Chicken, pork, beef, lamb. That would have been misleading.
I say if you don't even care what meat is in your sausage, meat replacement is fine too.
Whenever better-not-ask-mistery-meat is an acceptable option, meat replacement is acceptable as well.
If you'd buy that without checking the ingredients, you get what you get. Might be pig, chicken, goat, horse, beef, nutria, or lentils. If you don't care, you don't care.
I don't understand how that is the reply you went with. Why would a product having torture in the name be meaning it's the torture of the person who buys it? According to exactly what you said above, it should describe the product, which the person you replied to followed.
agreed - if this does pass I can't wait to stop seeing "burger" as a term used to mean anything but the minced flesh patty and all uses of "burger" for the whole sandwich to be made illegal as bread, lettuce, tomato, etc obv aren't made of animals
also I hope somebody finally starts enforcing this so we stop getting confusing product names like "peanut butter" - you're telling me a peanut was milked and then churned? mm I don't think so..
I assume you're being sarcastic, but when I was growing up in Australia we didn't call it peanut butter, it was peanut paste. Because the dairy lobby didn't want the confusion.
And culinary as well. And not without reason : fish has very different qualities from beef or chicken. Even leaving out the taste, you would never mistake fish for chicken.
And seeing that a mix of cucumbers and tomatoes are rarely seen as a fruit salad, or that people have a hard time calling a banana a berry, I think culinary definitions are important to us.
You were asking for definitions, and I responded by pointing out that they definitely exist. The fact that you or I don't personally come from a background which values those definitions doesn't mean they don't exist, or that other people don't use them.
Consumers readily know what a 'burger' is, and will readily understand that it is meat-free if 'plant-based' is used as a prefix to it. Plant-based burgers are intended to be substitute products for meat-based burgers, so disallowing the use of the word 'burger' will inevitably confuse consumers as to the nature of such products. Clear distinction is possible without directly favoring the meat lobby.
To anyone dowvoting my remark, you're more than welcome to tell me why/what you're downvoting. At least, if by downvoting you wanted help me understand why there may be an issue with my comment. If not, don't change a thing ;)
I didn't actually downvote, but I do object to your characterisation of this as misleading. People aren't labelling their products with the intent that the people buying it believe they're eating meat.
Those labels are designed to communicate what sort of thing you can do with it. If you label something "burger", for example, everyone will understand at a glance what they're looking at, and that you might like to put it between two buns with some lettuce. It will also catch the attention of people who are looking to make burgers, but might not have considered non-meat options.
Also, common usage of words like "burger" aren't limited to anything specific. People talk about "chicken burger" or "turkey burger" all the time, for example, and nobody accuses them of trying to trick people into eating chicken. Why not a "lentil burger" as well?
I didnāt actually downvote, but I do object to your characterisation of this as misleading. People arenāt labelling their products with the intent that the people buying it believe theyāre eating meat.
I understand that. But they still market those products as a way to convince people they will get a very similar experience to eating an actual steak, or a burger. If not, why would they call it a steak or a burger? It's like telling lies on my resume to get a job interview and then, once they have interviewed me and realized my resume was a joke, to act surprised I did not get the job.
Also, common usage of words like āburgerā arenāt limited to anything specific.
Did I say otherwise?
People talk about āchicken burgerā or āturkey burgerā all the time, for example, and nobody accuses them of trying to trick people into eating chicken. Why not a ālentil burgerā as well?
If you're asking me I would say because one of them contains no meat and because all the others clearly state what kind of meat theyāre made of? I don't mind vegan food trying to become the norm. I just mind it willing to lie to manage that, trying to persuade people it's 'just like eating meat' when it is not.
Disclaimer: I'm well into my 50s, I live in France and I like great food (and cheese ;), meaning I have no shame in admitting I have not set a foot in any fast-food for years, and rarely for most of my life and never by choice, also the burgers we occasionally enjoy eating my spouse and I are either the ones we make ourselves, using fresh food, or the ones that are also handmade at a traditional restaurant. So, clearly, I donāt have much experience regarding what's being sold under the name 'burger' nowadays, nor what younger people may expect to get in exchange for their money. But I do know what most people my age (at least the ones Iāve had the opportunity to eat with) expect to get when they order a āburgerā, or even a steak.
Sure, a burger can be vegan but it should not try to pretend it is the same culinary experience as eating a burger prepared with meat, be it a steak, chicken or whatever type of actual meat.
The few 'vegan steak/burgers' we purchased, well, they were an interesting experiment but they were not something I would suggest to anyone willing to taste their first āsteakā or burger. Iām not saying theyāre bad (I was not impressed) just that their marketing insists a little too much on the product being something it is not. Hence the 'misleading' part in my previous comment.
Even if we still eat a little meat (twice a week) vegetables are central in our eating habits. I think both my spouse and I would be a lot more receptive to their efforts if those new products pushed forward the fact that they are vegetables more than them trying to pretend they look or taste like the steak or burger theyāre not.
Edit: I forgot to thank you for replying and explaining, much appreciated :)
How the fuck do you look at a meat substitute product, which all scream "I AM NOT MEAT, I AM SUBSTITUTE" from the packaging to the naming conventions like "Like-Chicken", and think this is meat. Please, if you do this, don't do the shopping for your household. Depending on the language, you might end up with cleaning products in your breakfast cereal.
Why would I advertise that I made the breading animal free, when the patty is made of meat?
To cash in on the plant-based trend and make $$$ for the same product you used to sell for $$. Beyond isn't, because veggie is their brand, but I have to read ingredient labels because I can't do legumes, so I've seen the weirdest shit before with off-brand stuff.
even if this were to be confusing, slap a āveganā label on the front, and now youāre good.
Agreed. Also note that they're calling it "patties", so the quibble about whether or not they're "burgers" is irrelevant. It's just an example of how things can currently be confusing if you don't know your brands.
The tone of your message would normally be enough for me to realize the best answer should be to ignore it for what it is: (here, add some not polite word of your choice). But at the same time you're the only one of those angry people who have made the effort to try to express something vaguely resembling an opinion over my poor comment. So, even though your effort mostly boils down to a few dismissive remarks toward my little person, I want to encourage such an impressive attempt at communicating. Allow me to answer your remarks while doing my best to ignore your tone and sarcasm.
Okay, here I go: Heavily misleading marketing.
How the fuck do you look at a meat substitute product, which all scream āI AM NOT MEAT, I AM SUBSTITUTEā from the packaging to the naming conventions like āLike-Chickenā, and think this is meat.
I did a quick image search (using Qwant search engine) for vegan packaging and, without much surprise, I could not find much āscreamingā āI AM NOT MEAT; I AM SUBSTITUTEā.
On the other hand, while searching for one such package I could find a lot of packages (I dare not say all of them, as I only checked a few) using very similar ALLCAPS to yours, stating āSTEAKā in big bold face while, albeit in much smaller font and nowhere near that āSTEAKā part, stating āplant-based' or āsubstituteā which, no matter how dumb you seem to have realized I am, is not the same as 'NOT FUCKING MEAT BASED, YOU ABSOLUTE MORON OF A CUSTOMER' (did I get your amused tone right?)
Please, if you do this, donāt do the shopping for your household. Depending on the language, you might end up with cleaning products in your breakfast cereal.
For the rest of your message itās hard to answer anything while ignoring the part that is desperately trying to be insulting since there is not much beside that failed attempt. But since I promised to do my best, here I go:
Since you seem to worry about our eating habits, be informed that I don't eat cereal for breakfast, nor does my spouse. Cereals may not be the healthiest choice if you ask me (too much sugar).
As far as shopping for our household, once again I thank you so much for your touching concern, but you should know I seldom purchase any prepackaged and/or industrially-processed food and products as Iām much more into buying fresh and locally produced stuff which, very much unlike many of those so-called āveganā products weāre discussing, often happen to not be absurdly over-packaged which is good for the planet too, you know. A bit like eating less meat is good.
Finally, be assured it doesnāt matter much how desperately stupid Iām (Iām impressed how quickly you have realized what an absolute dumbfuck moron I am, it almost feels like if we were somehow related. Almost) as I do most my groceries at nearby small local shops, never in those dehumanized supermakets or malls, places where the owner knows most their costumers by heart, stupid-me included. So I feel safe knowing that they would never allow brainless-me to pick cleaning products instead of milk to pour into those cereals I donāt even eat at breakfast.
If that also worries you, be assured I donāt drink bleach to fight viruses. Iām not that stupid, thank you. I use an IV instead. Itās much quicker.
Since itās 10.30 PM in my corner of the world, allow me to thank you one last time for your kind comment and to wish you the absolute best evening such an amiable answer as yours deserves. It was a pleasure.
I'm afraid you may be right. And if that's how they envision convincing anyone to change their their mind, well, good luck with that. But I was still hoping maybe there was something else in my comment, something meaningful I mean, that was worth criticizing and discussing.
If there is nothing but a few random strangers on the Internet being displeased by a comment, well, it's not like they will stop being triggered anytime soon, and I certainly don't want to waste my energy worrying about them being too lazy to tell me what they disagree with, and why. So, like I said, they're more than welcome to continue hitting the downvote button ;)
180 Comments
Skasi@lemmy.world · 73 pts · 311d
It seems the meat lobby is way too strong. š
HowAbt2day@futurology.today · 16 pts · 311d
Theyāve been beefing it up for a while now.
BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 309d
They don't mince their words!
witty_username@feddit.nl · 53 pts · 311d
F04118F@feddit.nl · 48 pts · 311d
Imagine people ordering a "lentil burger", "soy burger", "plant burger", "bean burger", or "chickpea burger", and receiving a vegan meal.
Can you imagine how shocked and deceived, perhaps even violated they may feel? The horror!
Luckily the European Christian Democrats protected European citizens from this huge and common problem instead of, oh I dunno, helping European industry with the energy transition or end a genocide. They have their priorities straight here.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is another attempt by a panicked industry to slow down the transition to a slightly less cruel food production system and these politicians are earning some side money?
EDITED for tastefulness of words. The only words I changed are the only ones that OP quoted and responded to below. The rest of the message was ignored. I actually learned a valuable lesson today, thanks Felix!
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -52 pts · 311d
You vegans are so funny š¤£š¤£š¤£
F04118F@feddit.nl · 30 pts · 311d
Should I call it ecocide industry then?
Lung disease spreaders industry?
Epidemic production industry?
You don't have to care about animals at all to see the benefits of reducing meat production.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -59 pts · 311d
Carry on supporting "plant mass murdering industry" a. k. a. "consumer deception industry" sweetie š¤£š¤£š¤£
Somehow industry producing plant pulp which looks like shit and taste the same way are hell bent on calling their inferior products the same as "animal slaughtering industry". Try to guess why. Oh, hold on, that requires more than a few brain cells and you are a vegan after all.
F04118F@feddit.nl · 33 pts · 311d
Well, "sweetie", I never personally insulted you and I took the effort to link sources for my claims so I got that going for me.. š¤·
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -60 pts · 311d
How have I insulted you now sweetie? I mean, "Vegan" can be perceived as an insult so I kind of get it - but surely not for yourself?
Regarding brain cells - that's a simple statement of fact. Vegan diet, especially not properly balanced, impacts mental health and intellectual capabilities.
hotdogcharmer@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 310d
You are being very weird
AceSLive@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 310d
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 310d
they caught a ban for this already and whined in yptb
Apocalypteroid@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 309d
They are a mod of both a carnivore sub and one called OP is a fucking idiot, so they are clearly very experienced at both
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 44 pts · 311d
now i can't get dino nuggies cause there's no dinosaurs in them :(
noxypaws@pawb.social · 8 pts · 311d
If they're made from chicken, which like all birds are literally extant dinosaurs, then yes there are!
Taalnazi@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 311d
Fuck the meat lobby. Plant meat is the real deal!
RobotToaster@mander.xyz · 44 pts · 311d
I was going to disagree with you based on etymological pedantry, but it turns out the Old English "mete" just means "food" so now I have to agree with you based on etymological pedantry.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 15 pts · 311d
Just like how the rules forbidding plant milk to be called milk make no sense. Plant milk has existed for many centuries.
Tweak@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 310d
"Plant milk" could be a bit like "berry" though, in that as we have consolidated and rationalised our definitions it falls out of it. When we tried to come up with a clear idea of what a "berry" is we ended up excluding almost everything that has "berry" in the name. Like how tomatoes are fruits by the technical definition of a fruit.
Except for the fact that the reason plant milk is being excluded is entirely commercial lobbying, rather than a scientific or rational definition.
Taalnazi@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 311d
Based (dis)agreement
Tweak@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 310d
Fuck's sake, 2nd time that's happened to me in this thread. I thought steak should just be beef, but it turns out:
I don't even want to look up bacon now, I need to believe that it should just be pig.
towerful@programming.dev · 2 pts · 309d
Nah, bacon is bacon
Tweak@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 309d
Good. Fuck turkey bacon. It should still exist as a substitute, for my Muslim friends and whoever else, but they should call it something else.
stoly@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 311d
Is this like algebra where the order of operations matters?
Visstix@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 311d
If plant "meat" is real, it would be part of the same lobby. It's not meat. Just call it something else.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 14 pts · 311d
The terms burger and steak don't describe the contents of the food but the shape. And the word meat, in English, doesn't exclusively meant the flesh of an animal. So calling something vegan meat, or soy burger, is exactly the description a costumer would need. Anything else would be either a convoluted name or less descriptive.
Tweak@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 310d
And a pizza is simply flat bread with sauce and toppings. Come at me, Italians.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 310d
Most "tradicional food" as we know it is less than a century old and made of pure marketing.
skarn@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 304d
Italians are the least of your problems. I just informed the French that Tarte FlambƩ is now pizza. I'd start to say your prayers.
Tweak@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 302d
Flat bread with sauce/cheese and toppings? Yep, that's a pizza.
Taalnazi@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 311d
I will call it "animal-cruelty free meat" then.
It's meat because it looks and tastes like meat. Simple as.
Visstix@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 311d
Well that's a dumb fucking take.
Taalnazi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 311d
Facts don't care though, because it's what it is: it's meat, just without animal suffering.
sam o nella has got some research on it
and iirc he loves meat so yeah. basically animals are put into concentration camp-like conditions, except they overfeed them, and then kill them in cruel ways and with horrifying efficiency.
Visstix@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 311d
I don't give a fuck about the animal cruelty part.. it's different food, just call it something different. What's so difficult to understand?
Taalnazi@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 311d
Aight, if animal cruelty is no problem, fair. That's valid. We're all humans, after all.
So, I take it you then don't object to being stuffed with pesticides, herded with thousands of people in a crammed space, and transported off with a truck to slaughter, where you get stunned, electrically tortured, chopped and cut into bits, with your skin being used for leather?
Just want to let you know that the meat industry is doing exactly what people did to the Jews many years ago.
I followed your instructions and called it something different; animal-cruelty free meat. Why do you feel attacked for something that does not affect you in the slightest?
Visstix@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 311d
Again with the animal cruelty. This isn't about animal cruelty. I welcome lab grown meat, which is actually meat. I just don't understand why there is a need to imitate the meat industry. They can create new things, better things, and it doesn't have to be related to the meat industry at all. Now it's something similar tasting but not quite the same food. If it's labeled as something completely different maybe it would get more popular.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 311d
The closest one to taste like meat that I've tried is beyond burger, which in all fairness tasted like a terrible beef burger, while costing like a premium one and being uber processed.
Each one can do what they want, but I'll take a bean burger that doesn't pretend otherwise before any fake meat.
F04118F@feddit.nl · 10 pts · 311d
Well you're not allowed to call it a "bean burger" anymore cause that would be coNfUSInG according to the animal mass murder lobby.
Tweak@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 310d
Can you find a primary source for this? Because all I see is articles that may well be clickbait. I want to see what they actually voted on.
I think certain terms are definitively meat, eg steak, but saying a burger is exclusively meat is like saying a pizza must have plain tomato sauce.
In any case, this hasn't been finalised yet as the European Commission - the actual competent lawyers rather than populist representatives (who might not actually represent their voters) - have yet to have their say. I'd hope that common sense would withdraw "burger" from any law that comes out of this.
Edit: With (far too much) digging I managed to find what they voted on, and it does indeed include burger: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2025-0214_EN.html Ammendment 113, if you just search the page for "burger" you'll find the list of terms.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 311d
I'm not mass producing, selling or advertising them, so this ruling doesn't apply to me.
F04118F@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 311d
I guess it's a good thing then that no one will be allowed to buy the bean burger you just praised from anyone in Europe?
Imagine people ordering a "lentil burger", "soy burger", "plant burger", "bean burger", or "chickpea burger", and receiving a vegan meal. Can you imagine how shocked and deceived, perhaps even violated they may feel?
The horror! Luckily the European Christian Democrats protected European citizens from this huge and common problem instead of, oh I dunno, helping European industry with the energy transition or end a genocide. They have their priorities straight here.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is another attempt by the animal mass murder industry to slow down the transition to a slightly less cruel food production system and these politicians are earning some blood money?
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 311d
Ok OK you win. It's a bean patty.
I'll go to eat some rare steaks now. Real beef, of course.
Tweak@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 310d
It's not meat, it's a meat substitute.
You can say it is a replacement for the thing, you can't say it is the thing. Simples.
Taalnazi@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 310d
Yeah, and you're fed farmer propaganda. Cya. :)
Tweak@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 309d
Yay, glad to see you understand reasoning and don't just close off into your biased little echo chamber.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -16 pts · 311d
There is no such thing.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 311d
Meat lobbyists forcing regulations on products that threaten the meat industry.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -45 pts · 311d
It just did. European Parliament voted for regulations protecting consumers from deception used by the plant pulp industry.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 311d
Yay global warming solved! XD
/s
It's insane seeing adults make these crying baby comments about not eating as much meat so we all don't boil alive.
Throw out that pathetic ego, it isn't doing you any favors.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -26 pts · 311d
It is. It would even be better if all the public lying was banned, not just this one.
Ogy@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 310d
Accidentally eating a vegetable, you poor thing!
Tweak@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 310d
It's not about accidentally eating vegetables, it's about products being marketed in a misleading way. If I order a pizza with bacon on it, I don't want turkey, let alone a vegetable substitute.
However many terms are already agnostic, eg pattie, burger; these kind of things should be allowed. Also, "cooks like ground beef" isn't a problem, however maybe the way the words highlight "ground beef" might be. Like, the "cooks from" and "made from plants" are white text on a light coloured background, as if to try and make it easier to miss.
There are already laws against intentionally misleading people with advertising. Done properly, this is just an extension of that, to counter businesses trying to get around the current law.
Ogy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 272d
I have no problems with anything you say - as a vegetarian, Id also like to be able to distinguish between products and ensure Im getting plant based stuff.
However, you should keep in mind that this is not the actual intention of the meat industry pushing for this. Theyre just trying to fuck with the competition.
belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 311d
This be the type of person to drink Scheuermilch and sue Kinder Schokolade for child cruelty.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 311d
Clearly they sipped a bit too much Scheuermilch as a kid
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 311d
When has āburgerā or āsteakā ever exclusively meant meat from an animal? This sounds like political corruption to me. Somebody is getting paid for turning this linguistic gaslighting into law.
A āburgerā has always been a mince patty of any kind and a āsteakā is a thick slab of something. The default assumption may be meat, but it has never been exclusive.
Edit
OP appears to have a serious problem accepting facts. Itās disappointing given the number of upvotes Voyager shows for them. I suppose nobody is perfect.
Tweak@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 310d
I agree that burger has always been agnostic, but steak should really just be meat. Etymologically, it was always meat roasted on a stake. Similarly, bacon should just be a specific cut of pig meat, not turkey. Both of these are intentionally misleading marketing - with bacon it's even so when they're using different meats, let alone vegetables.
Intentionally misleading people through advertising, in order to get more sales, is wrong.
And don't get me started on American "biscuits" that are not cooked twice. They're savoury scones.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 310d
I mean... I kind of agree with you, but at the same time... Come on, the things have green packaging and "vegan" or "vegetarian" plastered all over the print. Not to mention they're being sold in separate sections in stores, not where the meat is.
You need to really not be paying attention to get "tricked" by this.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 305d
No. The below are vegan sausages.
noxypaws@pawb.social · 2 pts · 305d
Show us an actual photo of that product and its actual packaging, not some random useless image from tesco's website.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 305d
This is a photo of the actual product from the retailer website š Or perhaps you think the retailers falsify the photos of products they sell just for you?
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 305d
Are they stored with the meat in the supermarket?
Or would you rather find them with the rest of the vegan products, away from the meat isle?
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 305d
Are you for real now?
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 305d
Was that a difficult question?
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 305d
It certainly was a ridiculous one.
Tweak@feddit.uk · -4 pts · 310d
Yeah but you shouldn't have to be ever-vigilant against advertising. The government is supposed to regulate against businesses trying to trick people.
Like the OP picture, the box says "cooks like ground beef", which is fine when you read it all, but the font colour is almost trying to hide "cooks like" such that at a glance you might only see "ground beef" and pick it by mistake. That's very borderline, at least.
And while major supermarkets have vegetarian sections, smaller shops might not have such an obvious separation. You can't justify the packaging by where the product might be shelved.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 310d
Then regulate against that, not against calling them "burger patties", or something. I mean, the choice of the image is especially weird considering "burger patties" never mention meat specifically.
They do, because you're not allowed to mix food products types in the EU. Meat MUST be separate from cheese, cheese MUST be separate from vegetables, etc.
Tweak@feddit.uk · -3 pts · 310d
Yes but are there regulations on meat being separated from meat substitutes? Would we even want that? I think it could be better to have all the burgers in one place, so long as I can clearly tell beef from pork from veggie. And should the laws on packaging rely on compliance with other laws? It's the other way around - if the packaging is clear and appropriate, where things are placed doesn't matter.
Cheese being separated from other things is more about hygeine. And even then, it isn't 100% - you can buy meatballs with cheese in them. Maybe there's some sterlisation requirement to make that okay? I don't know.
I agree that burger should absolutely not be regulated as a meat only product. Just like how a pizza doesn't have to have plain tomato sauce.
I did some digging to try and find a primary source, the actual vote is here (Ammendment 113, just search the page for "burger"). If you take burger and hamburger out of the list I'd have no issue.
Hopefully when the EC (ie the competent lawyers, rather than populist representatives) take their pass at this they'll trim the list down.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 310d
Yes, because meat substitutes are not meat, therefore they cannot be stored with meat.
We already have it.
You already can. The veggies ones have big "veggie" letters on them.
The sanitary implications of meat stored with non-meat products has much farther reaching consequences than a random person going "ah, oops, I accidentally bought veggie burgers". Which, again, can only happen if they don't bother looking at the package they're grabbing.
I'm not talking about ready-made meals or other meal types. I'm talking about "raw products". Things like "meatballs with cheese" are not a raw product and you won't find them in the meat fridge, they'll be with the frozen meals section - with the pizzas, fries, deep-fry veggies, etc.
Tweak@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 309d
No, not always. The OP photo is a good example of this, it doesn't have any word starting with "veg" on the front. What clues there are are white text on a light colour background or vice versa, meanwhile the "meat words" are black text. The meat words are visually promoted, while the vegetarian stuff is drawn in such a way as to encourage you to miss it.
That's kind of what I was getting at, raw cheese is probably the main concern (because cheese itself is something that has to go off in a controlled way). Also, I do know supermarkets that sell raw meatballs with cheese in them in the fridge section. They're really good, although best eaten soon after purchase...
I don't think there is actually any regulation (yet) that would stop a shop from putting meat products next to meat substitute products. Eg, putting meat free burgers in a burger section. And I don't think there should be.
If you do know of an actual regulation, rather than just assuming there is one, I'd like to see it.
Lorax@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 310d
What about steak mushrooms literally their name, cauliflower steak, or something with a wooden steak in it?
Tweak@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 309d
After I posted this comment I looked up the etymology, the word "steak" literally comes from food being roasted on a stake. So, really, that should be the deciding factor - most steak we eat isn't technically steak because it's cooked in other ways.
Brazillian restaurants, the ones that come by with meat on a sword, should count as proper steak. Vegetables cooked in that manner could also be steak.
whaleross@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 311d
I'm throwing out the terms BURGR, SAUSGE, STEK as prior art so nobody can trademark them and everybody that produces vegetarian or vegan food can use them free of charge.
M137@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 311d
Some brands are already doing stuff like this. Here in Sweden we have "Ch*cken style", "Chick-un" etc. And some are pretty funny but does break these new shitty rules like "meat-free meatballs".
magnetichuman@fedia.io · 0 pts · 311d
I don't think thats how trademark law works, but I appreciate the energy
stoly@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 311d
You expect this from Texas but are shocked and disappointed when it's the EU.
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 311d
I've seen "plant based chicken nuggets", (0% chicken) which doesnt make sense
Good rule, food market stays the same, but these should be called "veggie nuggets" or whatever
RobotToaster@mander.xyz · 12 pts · 311d
I've seen "chicken-free nuggets", which makes more sense IMO.
Visstix@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 311d
But why not include every other thing it doesn't have in it?
Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 311d
Because if something is meant to imitate something else, consumers looking for such a substitute product should have an easy means of finding it. The target demographic of these products is people looking to avoid meat, so manufacturers already have an incentive to label them as being meat-free. Making them use meaningless words will inevitably confuse consumers more than a prefix such as 'plant-based' would, in turn discouraging adoption of such products by curious consumers, exactly the intended effect of the meat lobby that pushed for inclusion of the provision in the first place.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 311d
Sounds like standard cheapo nuggets to me
cosmicrookie@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 311d
Honestly I think that this might be a good thing for veggie prosucts
Some vegetable products make for pretty bad versions of their meat based counterpart but would be great products on their own accor
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 310d
I'm guessing they're trying to distract people from the fact that they're cutting back sustainability laws even further.
Tweak@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 309d
Nah it was just a day for farmers to bitch and moan and get their way a bit with the European Parliament. Literally, almost everything they were voting on was farming related.
smiletolerantly@awful.systems · 5 pts · 310d
Damn I better go stockpile pea-based mince(d meat).
(If you haven't tried it before, seriously, do. There's so many (traditional) recipes with minced meat for which this is a 1:1 replacement, it opens up an entire new world of cooking for vegetarian/vegan kitchens.)
vatlark@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 309d
Beefsteak tomatoes would like a word.
Italian: cuore di bue French: cÅur de bÅuf
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 310d
I wish they'd ban the name "coronation chickpea" here.
towerful@programming.dev · 1 pts · 309d
I've been caught out by that. Very disappointing sandwich
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 309d
I don't even know if it is legal. Coronation Chicken got the title as it was a recipe chosen by (or on behalf of) Queen Elizabeth II on her coronation. King Charles III's Coronation had Coronation Quiche. I don't think any old bloke can use the term "Coronation", I think it's protected like how you cannot call your shop "The Royal CafƩ" or use the Tudor Crown on non-commemorative merchandise
Khrux@ttrpg.network · 1 pts · 309d
I forgot it was commemorative, let's ban coronation chickpea and coronation chicken.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 309d
Coronation Chicken is fine as it's royally sanctioned
Khrux@ttrpg.network · 1 pts · 309d
Coronation chickpea is fine as it's royally forbidden.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 308d
Off with your head!!!
Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 310d
"Celine Imart, the French member of the parliament who led the initiative..."
Of course it was French-led!
Tweak@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 310d
Well I think this law could be fine, depending on how far exactly it goes. I don't really think it's appropriate to call vegetarian products "bacon" or "steak", however "burger" is already generic enough (you can have a beef burger, chicken burger, or veggie burger). In the article image, it says "cooks like ground beef" which should also be ok. A "pattie" is also not necessarily a specific type of meat. Hell, I even take offense at "turkey bacon" - the point is that it is intentionally misleading.
Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 310d
Aldi here are selling plant based products like "no chicken burger". It's literally saying there's no chicken. I wonder if that will get banned.
Tweak@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 310d
Depends on how exactly it's presented. There's a fine line between saying the product is a substitute for something, and misleading people into thinking it is the thing. Like the OP picture, it says "cooks like ground beef", which is okay in text, but on the box "cooks like" is white text on a light colour background, as if to create the possibility of you glancing at the packaging and only seeing "ground beef".
If it's just "No Chicken", that's fine, but if it's like ^no^ CHICKEN then maybe not.
Deifyed@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 311d
Felt the need to say this:
Downvotes are supposed to mean "does not contribute to the discussion", not "I don't agree with this".
Do you think downvoting people to oblivion helps the cause?
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 311d
Does not contribute to the discussion
Leax@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -3 pts · 310d
Most people in the comments are overreacting. Nothing is banned, just the right to name your product meat if it's not.
njordomir@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 311d
I sat down in a high volume bakery in a German pedestrian zone recently only to find that the chicken sandwich I had picked out was really some kind of fake cardboard plant meat. I have nothing against that sort of thing and I'm open to trying new things, but they used some misleading terminology to make it sound like meat. I remember being irritated at the time and I'm glad the politicians have this issue in their sights. Having said that, I'm baffled this is important enough in contrast to the rest of world events to actually warrant attention and action.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 11 pts · 311d
Things that never happened, part 473.
njordomir@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 310d
Pretty sure it was "Backwerk". I would also be surprised if it wasn't in the small print on the sign or something. The point for me was that I should have made that choice consciously, but due to the "meaty" language and my hurried state, I was misled into thinking it was meat. Consumers should know what they are getting based on how it is described and I found the description lacking in specificity. Apparently this is not enough for me to complain until I saw an article on Lemmy about the EU addressing it. :-)
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 310d
Backwerk has very clearly signed vegan sandwiches. I'm sure it could happen if you're just absent minded buying something without paying attention. But then don't get mad if you buy the wrong thing... Like when you buy a schnitzel you don't know what's inside unless you fucking read the label.
hakase@lemmy.zip · -6 pts · 311d
Great news! Hopefully the US follows suit, and does the same for milk and cheese!
CXORA@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 310d
Why...
hakase@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 310d
So that I don't have to keep spending ten minutes triple-checking packages of food every time I go shopping, ever since the time I double-checked that I was buying actual mozzarella, only to find that my cheesy bread tasted like plastic that evening due to misleading packaging and small print.
I want to be able to walk into the store, blindly grab packages that say "burgers" and "cheese" without having to take ten minutes to scour them, and not be blindsided when I get home by what I believe amounts to false advertising. Not to mention this will make it less likely that people morally or ethically opposed to meat and dairy products accidentally purchase those products.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it honestly seems like a purely positive change with no downsides whatsoever, other than to vegans mad that meat and dairy exist at all. The products will all still be available to buy, but will now be less likely to confuse consumers.
Edit: [Here's] a great example from lower in the thread. You either have to have specific cultural knowledge that "Beyond" means "no meat", or you have to check the actual ingredients.
Instead of this intentionally misleading garbage, you could have the large print actually say something like "PLANT PATTY", and then the small print say "Compare to a chicken burger patty!" or something like that.
CXORA@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 310d
Idk, ive never seen plant based food that's ambigious over whether or not it contains meat. Thats kind of the selling point of the product after all.
It feels like this law is just to undermine the competition.
I'm sorry, maybe your area is different and the packaging doesn't show "plant based", "soy", "oat milk" etc prominently. But that's just so far outside my experience I can't imagine it.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 305d
The below is an example of vegan sausages sold in the UK - tell me it is not misleading with "meat free" printed in white on bright background:
CXORA@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 305d
CXORA@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 305d
I'm sorry, that image is too blurry for me to make out most of the text, regardless of the colours.
I tried finding the same packaging in higher resolution, but it doesn't match what any of the product pages for frys I have been able to find.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 305d
I belive they used to be sold in one of upmarket shops in the UK. I don't see them anymore on their website so they probably gone. But see another example - no mention these are vegan. In my opinion this is clearly misleading.
CXORA@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 305d
That certainly doesnt mention its meat free.
Sure. Though, whether or not people care if there is any meat in "sausage" is an open question.
"Sausage" kind of just means "tube shaped savoury food". I was expecting some specific meat to be mentioned. Chicken, pork, beef, lamb. That would have been misleading.
skarn@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 304d
Omnivore here.
I say if you don't even care what meat is in your sausage, meat replacement is fine too.
Whenever better-not-ask-mistery-meat is an acceptable option, meat replacement is acceptable as well.
If you'd buy that without checking the ingredients, you get what you get. Might be pig, chicken, goat, horse, beef, nutria, or lentils. If you don't care, you don't care.
MehBlah@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 311d
I'm really enjoying all the angst this one is stirring up. I got plenty of things to care about but this one isn't one of them.
Edit: The butthurt is real and strong.
stoly@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 311d
You cared enough to comment.
MehBlah@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 311d
I commented how much fun I'm having watching all the whining. I don't care so I love watching it. You care too much.
Edit: ;P Edit2: lol
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -34 pts · 311d
Good, product names should not be misleading.
Edit: I wonder what idiots think product names SHOULD be misleading.
gressen@lemmy.zip · 50 pts · 311d
I agree. Burgers should be called tortured ground-up cows.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -47 pts · 311d
Who is torturing you?
M137@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 311d
I don't understand how that is the reply you went with. Why would a product having torture in the name be meaning it's the torture of the person who buys it? According to exactly what you said above, it should describe the product, which the person you replied to followed.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -22 pts · 311d
I know.
UnexpectedBehavior@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 311d
So how should a veggie burger be called?
colforge@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 311d
Vegetable patty
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 311d
"Disk of disappointment"?
oneser@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 311d
I love the even spread on the up/down votes to this comment.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -36 pts · 311d
"heavily processed plant pulp" will do.
M137@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 311d
So then a ton of animal meat products needs to have their names changed too "heavily processed animal pulp" too? Because that's what they are.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -15 pts · 311d
Nope. They are delicious mince meat burgers. Which reminds me, it is Fri, time to have one.
Taalnazi@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 311d
Like "concentration camp slaughter" for animal meat?
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -15 pts · 311d
Like delicious steak, medium rare please.
noxypaws@pawb.social · 1 pts · 305d
as opposed to "heavily processed animal pulp"?
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 305d
No, as opposed to "tasty beef/pork/chicken/turkey burger". You know, a natural product. Which reminds me of tomorrow's shopping - steak tartare it is.
noxypaws@pawb.social · 0 pts · 305d
There's not a damn thing that's "natural" about ground meat.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 305d
*mince
zeezee@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 311d
agreed - if this does pass I can't wait to stop seeing "burger" as a term used to mean anything but the minced flesh patty and all uses of "burger" for the whole sandwich to be made illegal as bread, lettuce, tomato, etc obv aren't made of animals
also I hope somebody finally starts enforcing this so we stop getting confusing product names like "peanut butter" - you're telling me a peanut was milked and then churned? mm I don't think so..
Zagorath@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 311d
I assume you're being sarcastic, but when I was growing up in Australia we didn't call it peanut butter, it was peanut paste. Because the dairy lobby didn't want the confusion.
myster0n@feddit.nl · 6 pts · 311d
According to some definitions fish is not meat. What should a fish burger be called then?
normalexit@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 311d
Living animals are made of meat.
Edit: I got downvoted, but I have filleted a fish before, they are full of organs and blood. Your wacky religions can call it what you want I guess?
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 311d
According to what definitions?
MartianSands@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 311d
Various holy books, I believe. See also pescetarianism, which stems from the same place
myster0n@feddit.nl · 12 pts · 311d
And culinary as well. And not without reason : fish has very different qualities from beef or chicken. Even leaving out the taste, you would never mistake fish for chicken.
And seeing that a mix of cucumbers and tomatoes are rarely seen as a fruit salad, or that people have a hard time calling a banana a berry, I think culinary definitions are important to us.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 311d
And why would anyone with a brain care?
MartianSands@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 311d
You were asking for definitions, and I responded by pointing out that they definitely exist. The fact that you or I don't personally come from a background which values those definitions doesn't mean they don't exist, or that other people don't use them.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 311d
And again, why would anyone with a brain care?
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 310d
Why would anyone with a brain be confused or "misled" by words like "veggie burger" or "oat milk"?
Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 311d
Consumers readily know what a 'burger' is, and will readily understand that it is meat-free if 'plant-based' is used as a prefix to it. Plant-based burgers are intended to be substitute products for meat-based burgers, so disallowing the use of the word 'burger' will inevitably confuse consumers as to the nature of such products. Clear distinction is possible without directly favoring the meat lobby.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 311d
'plant-based butter'.
FelixCress@lemmy.world · -15 pts · 311d
*heavily processed plant pulp
belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 311d
Let's rename burgers to heavily processed animal carcasses then :)
Libb@piefed.social · -15 pts · 311d
100%. Misleading marketing is not the right way to encourage people to change their habits. It should not be.
Libb@piefed.social · -1 pts · 311d
To anyone dowvoting my remark, you're more than welcome to tell me why/what you're downvoting. At least, if by downvoting you wanted help me understand why there may be an issue with my comment. If not, don't change a thing ;)
MartianSands@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 311d
I didn't actually downvote, but I do object to your characterisation of this as misleading. People aren't labelling their products with the intent that the people buying it believe they're eating meat.
Those labels are designed to communicate what sort of thing you can do with it. If you label something "burger", for example, everyone will understand at a glance what they're looking at, and that you might like to put it between two buns with some lettuce. It will also catch the attention of people who are looking to make burgers, but might not have considered non-meat options.
Also, common usage of words like "burger" aren't limited to anything specific. People talk about "chicken burger" or "turkey burger" all the time, for example, and nobody accuses them of trying to trick people into eating chicken. Why not a "lentil burger" as well?
Libb@piefed.social · -3 pts · 311d
I understand that. But they still market those products as a way to convince people they will get a very similar experience to eating an actual steak, or a burger. If not, why would they call it a steak or a burger? It's like telling lies on my resume to get a job interview and then, once they have interviewed me and realized my resume was a joke, to act surprised I did not get the job.
Did I say otherwise?
If you're asking me I would say because one of them contains no meat and because all the others clearly state what kind of meat theyāre made of? I don't mind vegan food trying to become the norm. I just mind it willing to lie to manage that, trying to persuade people it's 'just like eating meat' when it is not.
Disclaimer: I'm well into my 50s, I live in France and I like great food (and cheese ;), meaning I have no shame in admitting I have not set a foot in any fast-food for years, and rarely for most of my life and never by choice, also the burgers we occasionally enjoy eating my spouse and I are either the ones we make ourselves, using fresh food, or the ones that are also handmade at a traditional restaurant. So, clearly, I donāt have much experience regarding what's being sold under the name 'burger' nowadays, nor what younger people may expect to get in exchange for their money. But I do know what most people my age (at least the ones Iāve had the opportunity to eat with) expect to get when they order a āburgerā, or even a steak.
Sure, a burger can be vegan but it should not try to pretend it is the same culinary experience as eating a burger prepared with meat, be it a steak, chicken or whatever type of actual meat.
The few 'vegan steak/burgers' we purchased, well, they were an interesting experiment but they were not something I would suggest to anyone willing to taste their first āsteakā or burger. Iām not saying theyāre bad (I was not impressed) just that their marketing insists a little too much on the product being something it is not. Hence the 'misleading' part in my previous comment.
Even if we still eat a little meat (twice a week) vegetables are central in our eating habits. I think both my spouse and I would be a lot more receptive to their efforts if those new products pushed forward the fact that they are vegetables more than them trying to pretend they look or taste like the steak or burger theyāre not.
Edit: I forgot to thank you for replying and explaining, much appreciated :)
belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 311d
Okay, here I go: Heavily misleading marketing.
How the fuck do you look at a meat substitute product, which all scream "I AM NOT MEAT, I AM SUBSTITUTE" from the packaging to the naming conventions like "Like-Chicken", and think this is meat. Please, if you do this, don't do the shopping for your household. Depending on the language, you might end up with cleaning products in your breakfast cereal.
faythofdragons@slrpnk.net · -2 pts · 311d
Here's an example of packaging being confusing.
It is not clear without reading the ingredient label if the it's plant-based-chicken or plant-based-breading on the chicken-meat patty.
belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 311d
2 important things:
This isn't confusing unless you want it to be.
faythofdragons@slrpnk.net · -1 pts · 311d
To cash in on the plant-based trend and make $$$ for the same product you used to sell for $$. Beyond isn't, because veggie is their brand, but I have to read ingredient labels because I can't do legumes, so I've seen the weirdest shit before with off-brand stuff.
Agreed. Also note that they're calling it "patties", so the quibble about whether or not they're "burgers" is irrelevant. It's just an example of how things can currently be confusing if you don't know your brands.
noxypaws@pawb.social · 1 pts · 305d
What the fuck would meat-based breading be like?
faythofdragons@slrpnk.net · 0 pts · 305d
According to the keto people it's either bacon bits or pork rinds
Libb@piefed.social · -3 pts · 311d
The tone of your message would normally be enough for me to realize the best answer should be to ignore it for what it is: (here, add some not polite word of your choice). But at the same time you're the only one of those angry people who have made the effort to try to express something vaguely resembling an opinion over my poor comment. So, even though your effort mostly boils down to a few dismissive remarks toward my little person, I want to encourage such an impressive attempt at communicating. Allow me to answer your remarks while doing my best to ignore your tone and sarcasm.
I did a quick image search (using Qwant search engine) for vegan packaging and, without much surprise, I could not find much āscreamingā āI AM NOT MEAT; I AM SUBSTITUTEā.
On the other hand, while searching for one such package I could find a lot of packages (I dare not say all of them, as I only checked a few) using very similar ALLCAPS to yours, stating āSTEAKā in big bold face while, albeit in much smaller font and nowhere near that āSTEAKā part, stating āplant-based' or āsubstituteā which, no matter how dumb you seem to have realized I am, is not the same as 'NOT FUCKING MEAT BASED, YOU ABSOLUTE MORON OF A CUSTOMER' (did I get your amused tone right?)
For the rest of your message itās hard to answer anything while ignoring the part that is desperately trying to be insulting since there is not much beside that failed attempt. But since I promised to do my best, here I go:
Since itās 10.30 PM in my corner of the world, allow me to thank you one last time for your kind comment and to wish you the absolute best evening such an amiable answer as yours deserves. It was a pleasure.
edit: typos
Visstix@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 311d
It's just being brigaded by weird vegans it seems
Libb@piefed.social · -4 pts · 311d
I'm afraid you may be right. And if that's how they envision convincing anyone to change their their mind, well, good luck with that. But I was still hoping maybe there was something else in my comment, something meaningful I mean, that was worth criticizing and discussing.
If there is nothing but a few random strangers on the Internet being displeased by a comment, well, it's not like they will stop being triggered anytime soon, and I certainly don't want to waste my energy worrying about them being too lazy to tell me what they disagree with, and why. So, like I said, they're more than welcome to continue hitting the downvote button ;)