Hacker News Reader

Comment by danielbln | Hacker News Reader

We have the same idiotic legislation in Germany, forbidding "confusing" language like calling oat milk "milk", because clearly only liquid squeezed from an utter constitutes milk (don't mind coconut milk..) and so producers have to call it oat drink, even though every single consumer just calls it oat milk anyway. Some other regulations exist for meat-like products, clearly put in place by protectionism of the dairy and meat industry under the guise of "not confusing consumers". Oh well.

View on HN

Oat milk companies aren't trying to trick consumers. We drink Coconut milk and the box has two big coconuts in the middle. The only mention of milk is relatively small text towards the bottom of the box.

The vegetarian sausage/patties and similar sorts of products do the reverse. They mimick meat products as closely as they can and relegate the vegetarian part to the small text. It's a basic truth in advertising/fraud thing. Obviously not a mind reader but sure looks like these companies are at some level trying to trick people into buying their product.

Yesterday I was confronted with a "Leverwurst", where "Leberwurst" (liverwurst) is the one with meat. Initially I thought it is an odd typo for an advertising effect until I realized which section I'm in.

The part that bothered me was the grocery store I typically frequent reduced the shelf space for actual meat with the vegetarian meat product. Luckily, it only lasted for 6 months before the lack of sales meant removing them.

In stores around me, they put 'beyond meat' (meat's in the name for crying out loud) products right next to the actual meat.

And in restaurants you better know what the brand means because there is no label or ingredient list on the menu.

A slight tangent, but does anyone remember that fake commercial for Wood Milk? I feel like it was some ridiculous attempt by milk companies to make people think oat milk or almond milk is gross, but it just made me want some wood milk.

Also was this actress they used just laughing at how ridiculous the milk companies were being or was she genuinely anti-milk? Not that it particularly matters.

Aubrey Plaza never laughs. That's part of her appeal. Thank God for her deadpan sarcasm.

Sorry that this is somewhat of a tangent, but in the supermarkets I frequent the fact that we're talking about "patties" already makes it like 75% (or more) probable it's plant-based because they're kinda rare and everyone just buys ground beef to make burger patties.

If you are going to barbeque for a dozen or more people, the pre-made patties are much more convenient, particularly because they will take the same amount of time to cook.

So if that's a thing you only do every once in a while, you are a prime candidate for confusing advertising. You don't already know what the thing you want looks like, and you probably weren't expecting the ambiguity, because "meat" has meant one thing for thousands of years.

> because "meat" has meant one thing for thousands of years.

That's super funny that you wrote that because actually "meat" comes from Old English "mete" which referred to food in general.

True, but the larger quantity of "unknown" stuff I buy, the closer I look, usually ;)

But yeah, that's why said it less of an argument, more of a fun fact. I honestly couldn't tell you if the regular supermarket I usually shop at has patties, I think not. The large one usually has everything though.

Also: "JUST Egg", which according to the website (http://ju.st) sells "really good Eggs". Which, of course, it doesn't.

Vegan products enjoy a healthy markup, and vegan stuff sells nicely. No producer is relegating the fact that their product is vegan to some fine print in the hopes to trick someone trying to buy animal meat. Has anyone ever mistaken vegan meat alternatives for the real deal?

> Has anyone ever mistaken vegan meat alternatives for the real deal?

Yes, I was in Portugal this summer for vacations. I don't know the language and was shopping for groceries. In the meat aisle I saw a package and recognized the word for "sausage" in big so just bought some. Later at home I discovered that it was a vegan product.

I did not really mind, but the packaging felt quite deceptive. Obviously it's not an every day occurrence to shop in a foreign country, and it would have been solved if I carefully analyzed the products I pick; but I just wanted to get some groceries quickly. There were no illustrations that would hint to a vegetarian composition.

Of course they do. Take this one for example:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Field-Roast-Refrigerated-Classic-...

They relegate any mention of not being meat to the third most prominent text.

Hilariously they even split the plant based from the meat and cheese co with the intention to fool you. The text is:

(Small text) Plant Based

(Big text) Field Roast

(Small text) Meat and cheese co

Like they're not even trying to hide that they're hiding what their product is.

ETA: Contrast with coconut milk:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Silk-Dairy-Free-Gluten-Free-Unswe...

Any mention of "Milk" is like the 4th or 5th most prominent text. This is clearly a product that is not cow milk and doesn't want to be mistaken for cow milk.

Right below it says "Plant based Frankfurters" in a font only slightly smaller than the rest. No-where does it mention meat, there is no animal printed on it and plant-based is mentioned twice, right on the front label, once in small, once in medium letters. I mean, what do you expect? I'm all for producers not fooling customers, but compared to really egregious things you sometimes see in the US, your example doesn't strike me as deceptive at all.

>No-where does it mention meat

It's literally called "meat and cheese co". You have to look above the branded and bold FIELD ROAST to see that it's a "plant based meat and cheese co".

You've gone from:

>Vegan products enjoy a healthy markup, and vegan stuff sells nicely. No producer is relegating the fact that their product is vegan to some fine print

To quibbling about whether clearly secondary text counts as "fine print". It's not an honest argument. To further illustrate, I never said "fine print". I said "small text". You're trying to shift my goal posts in order to find some fig leaf to be right.

I'm not quibbling, and disagree with the notion that I'm doing dishonest discourse. I merely disagree with you that the package as you have linked it is deceptive, and that it is in my opinion not in need of further regulation. What does an appropriate packaging for a plant based sausage look like to you?

>disagree with the notion that I'm doing dishonest discourse. I merely disagree with you that the package as you have linked it is deceptive

Nah, the chain was:

Me: They mimick meat products as closely as they can and relegate the vegetarian part to the small text

You: Vegan products enjoy a healthy markup, and vegan stuff sells nicely. No producer is relegating the fact that their product is vegan to some fine print in the hopes to trick someone trying to buy animal meat

Anyone engaging in honest debate would look at the package I linked and see that it doesn't look like anything you describe. They also wouldn't say "No-where does it mention meat" and then completely ignore the fact that "meat and cheese co" is on the package when pointed out.

>> Has anyone ever mistaken vegan meat alternatives for the real deal?

Yes. And the mistake can be fatal given some allergies.

That is such a straw-man, c'mon. If you're that allergic, you better look at the ingredients list and don't just hope for the best when glancing at the label, especially in the US of A.

If you have had an allergy your whole life, and never once had any meat product contained that allergen, then are you really going to check the packaging?

What if you thought you were getting the same thing you always get, assuming the packaging only changed slightly?

Its not a strawman. Calling plants steak, ribs (see TFA) or even burgers is just playing word games in an area that actually means something to people. I'd say Amy argument in favor of that is some kind of BS argument. To be clear, I have no issue with the products, just the deliberately deceptive naming.

I think the vegan stuff is taking the brunt of what the industry has done to other traditional ingredients. Replacing sugar with Sucralose or HFCS (it's hidden and not made clear). Replacing butter with palm oil. Randomly adding MSG and preservatives where they can get away with it.

I am not some sort of traditionalist but the food industry hasn't regulated itself on things that deeply annoy consumers (given how retail shelf stocking works, consumers aren't the ones buying from food producers directly - it's the megastores). Absent shaking up retail business model, we need regulation so consumers' needs are represented.

Various nut and grain milks have been around since the 1200's, and always called 'milk'. It's strange that the objection is only made now, 800 years later.

You may have a point regarding milk, but not for the meat related words in the article like steak and ribs. I can accept that "burger" has probably been generalized already.

The real issue is making the plant stuff look like the animal stuff and then naming it that way. That's just deceptive. In that regard most of the "milks" are fake.

There is also an issue around food allergies, which can actually kill someone. Don't forget to tell people your nut-based milk isn't just dairy. It's sad that we now have to ask what's in everything because the words are starting to mean nothing.

I'm not sure why people think words are starting to change. "Almond milk" for example is a venerable term about 800 years old. I attribute this furor to a lack of English skills, but maybe there's a political angle as well, with people regurgitating the latest political rage.

I see no problem in "oat drink" vs. "oat milk". To me there's a difference in it, even if we have words like "Scheuermilch" (scouring milk) and milk also has a definition as "milky white opaque substances" which an oat drink is.

you seem to be arguing backwards

> I see no problem in "oat drink" vs "oat milk"

Sounds like you think it's ok they forced the name change to "oat drink"

> milk also has a definition as "milky white opaque substances" which an oat drink is

Sounds like you think the name should have stayed as "oat milk"

No, I'm being fair towards those who are in favor of "oat milk". But I have zero issues with it being forced to be named "oat drink" and I prefer it this way. In my case because they taste completely different. An oat drink requires added sugar for it to even be tasty to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com