Comment by dmritard96 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmritard96 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Have my doubts that this is as much a real issue as it is people upset over change. When I buy 'beefless beef crumbles', I'm not confused. I'd be willing to bet the number of people that are actually confused rounds to zero. As much as I love the idea of veggie based meat parity, its still not there so even if someone was confused once (which probably doesn't really happen), they won't be confused the second time.

Also, at what point is the label about the content rather than the source?

If I make an impossible burger thats indistinguishable from an animal product, does it matter that it came from plants?

What if I clone cells from meat tissue into steaks? Is that meat? It still puts these guys out of business...

Change hurts, but pretending this is a naming issue is just posturing by an industry that uses tons of land for grazing, for growing (multiple states in the midwest dedicated to corn for feed..., and has been shown to treat animals horribly. Why not just say 'what are we going to do' instead of some straw man about semantics and marketplace confusion that doesn't really hold water.

>When I buy 'beefless beef crumbles', I'm not confused.

You don't think someone may buy this product believing that it's actually beef? It seems pretty easy to make that mistake to me. Besides if they described themselves as 'beefless beef crumbles' instead of 'beef crumbles beefy' it probably wouldn't be an issue.

https://store.veganessentials.com/beyond-beef-crumbles-by-be...

>If I make an impossible burger thats indistinguishable from an animal product, does it matter that it came from plants?

If I make a chicken patty from a caged chicken that's indistinguishable from organic, free-range chickens, does it matter that it came from a cage? Can I sell it as 'organic, free range chicken patties'?

Of course it matters. Consumers have a fundamental right to know what it is that they're buying.

>Change hurts, but pretending this is a naming issue is just posturing by an industry that uses tons of land for grazing

I'm not going to defend meat industry practices but pretending like this isn't about actual false advertising is wrong. Look at these products.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Beyond-Meat-Beast-Burger/13728403...

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Beyond-Meat-Chicken-Grilled-Strip...

These are being placed directly next to meat (you know, the animal flesh kind). This most definitely is an issue of false advertising.

I think there's an argument made that some packaging can be confusing. They might think the term 'beyond meat' is clear enough but not everyone will. Perhaps stores need to stock them in different locations - in fact, that's how I nearly always see it done. I think supermarkets have ample incentive to not deceive their customers.

At the same time, disallowing vegetarian companies from using the words 'milk' or 'meat' seems like complete overreach. Vegetarians / vegans think of these products in terms of what they are an imitation of, and they want to understand what the product is going for. It's incredibly useful to be able to use these terms. Not to mention they are already the way people colloquially refer to them. I don't think the 'real' versions should have a monopoly on those words at all.

>At the same time, disallowing vegetarian companies from using the words 'milk' or 'meat' seems like complete overreach. Vegetarians / vegans think of these products in terms of what they are an imitation of, and they want to understand what the product is going for. It's incredibly useful to be able to use these terms. Not to mention they are already the way people colloquially refer to them. I don't think the 'real' versions should have a monopoly on those words at all.

Well let's take it back to my chicken example. I'm raising antibiotic-loaded chickens in tiny cages. I want consumers to think of my meat and egg products in terms of what they are an imitation of - free range organic chicken products. I think this would be really useful to the consumer. It also seems unfair to me that only chicken which is actually free range or organic should have a monopoly on those terms. Should I be able to include 'free range' or 'organic' in my advertising?

You see those chicken strips in my previous comment? What if instead of saying 'REAL MEAT' in big text and then below in smaller text '100% plant protein' - it said 'REAL ORGANIC' in big text and then below in smaller text it said 'cage raised'? It would obviously be wrong to attempt to confuse the consumer in that way. I think people here are confusing whether realistic meat substitutes are a good development (they are) and whether they're meat (they're not.) If we just flip this scenario and pretend it's Tyson using the same advertising practices as Beyond Meat it becomes obvious how wrong this really is.

>Not to mention they are already the way people colloquially refer to them.

I have never heard anyone refer to a patty of soy and pea protein (or beets or heme or what have you) as 'beef' or 'meat.' In my experience they call it a 'veggie burger.'

I don't think your argument is very strong. Calling something 'free range' when it isn't would be akin to calling something purple when its orange. It has a particular meaning. However, 'milk', 'meat', etc already have expanded meanings as shown by how people use them colloquially. They are often used in adjective form to describe something with a particular quality (milky, meaty) because they are such broad words.

I completely agree 'Real meat' was confusing. We don't disagree there. Seems like a deceptive advertising compliant is more appropriate there.

> I have never heard anyone refer to a patty of soy and pea protein (or beets or heme or what have you) as 'beef' or 'meat.' In my experience they call it a 'veggie burger.'

You just disproved yourself - they call it a veggie burger if it looks like a burger, veggie sausage if it looks like sausage, almond milk if it looks like milk, nut cheese if it looks like cheese etc. Also you just need to hang around vegetarians more to hear 'veggie beef'. In fact, vegetarians just call it 'meat', 'beef' etc to their friends as long as they all know what they're talking about.

>You just disproved yourself - they call it a veggie burger if it looks like a burger

I don't think this disproves me at all. Consumers understand what sort of product they're buying when purchasing a 'veggie burger' and they'd probably know what they're buying if they were purchasing 'beef flavored veggie crumbles' or 'plant-based beef crumbles' or 'veggie burger crumble.' All of these would be totally clear. When you sell that vegetable based product as 'beefy beef crumbles' though I think you're crossing a line. Maybe we'll meet the meat industry halfway and allow 'veggie meat' and 'veggie beef' but I totally get why they're pushing for this because at the very least the terms 'meat' and 'beef' shouldn't be used unamended.

> If I make a chicken patty from a caged chicken that's indistinguishable from organic, free-range chickens, does it matter that it came from a cage? Can I sell it as 'organic, free range chicken patties'?

Right now, under current laws, there'd be little to stop you if you got certified organic and met the incredibly minimal requirements for free range/cage free/whatever.

I'll give you that some of the beyond meat stuff might be confusing to some people (though "beyond meat" should get the point across), but to pretend that stores need to have some magic legally protected area just for meat products lest people accidentally purchase dreaded vegetable protein is industry promoted nonsense. Should we mandate that stores keep all the organic food in an organic section? Should we require that the sour cream be kept separate from the yogurt? Is there a legal requirement that nectarines be kept away from peaches?

A meat shelf is not a constitutionally protected phenomenon.

>Right now, under current laws, there'd be little to stop you if you got certified organic and met the incredibly minimal requirements for free range/cage free/whatever.

Two things. One, in my example my chickens are not free range or organic. Two, the first part of any legal argument is a moral one. In that first we decide what is morally right or wrong and then we make a law that fits it if appropriate. So ignoring the laws that prevent me, is it morally right to sell non-organic, non-free range chicken as 'organic free-range chicken'? I'd say the answer is an obvious no but maybe you disagree. Following that should we maybe institute a law that enshrines that and helps us keep chicken farmers like me from misleading consumers into buying a product that isn't what it says on the box? I'd say yes.

>but to pretend that stores need to have some magic legally protected area just for meat products lest people accidentally purchase dreaded vegetable protein is industry promoted nonsense.

The article makes it clear that while meat producers are annoyed at the presence of these products in the meat aisle, they are only pursuing legal remedies in regards to the terms used to market them - 'meat' and 'beef' (and I'd bet 'chicken' and 'pork' will follow shortly.)

>A meat shelf is not a constitutionally protected phenomenon.

No one is arguing that.

>If I make a chicken patty from a caged chicken that's indistinguishable from organic, free-range chickens, does it matter that it came from a cage? Can I sell it as 'organic, free range chicken patties'?

>Of course it matters. Consumers have a fundamental right to know what it is that they're buying.

Yeah, I didn't say they don't have a right to know. I asked what is the line where something goes from Meat matter to plant based meat matter, and whether that matters.

But I'll bite. Do you know where your food comes from? And do you have a right to know? As I understand it, supply chains, including food are largely proprietary and not usually disclosed. You certainly don't have that right with prepared food (restaurant doesn't need to tell you what is in everything and where it came from), or minimally, they don't need to volunteer it or list it on the plate/menu.

So on this point:

>Consumers have a fundamental right to know what it is that they're buying.

I would argue they actually don't.

>I would argue they actually don't.

Allow me to amend my statement then - "Consumers should have a fundamental right to know what it is that they're buying."

Surely you agree with that? The more consumers are able to know about the products they buy the better. To that end ensuring that meat-substitute products are labeled in such a way that consumers understand they are meat-substitutes is good.

I also notice you answered the first question but avoided the second, maybe you can give me an answer:

>Can I sell it as 'organic, free range chicken patties'?

It says right on the image you posted, right on the front of the package "Plant based protein". Walmart also doesn't sell these with the meat they are in the frozen entree section with the rest of the vegetarian stuff in a section labelled vegetarian. The ingredients are clearly stated on the package. You would literally have to not be paying attention to confuse the two. These are not right next to the meat in a single store I have been at. This is an issue in search of an audience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com