>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.'