• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 day ago

    Absolutely OK. If “something something X” is the name of your product, it needs to contain X to a certain degree. If there was no strawberry in strawberry jam, you would complain. If there was no cinnamon in a cinnamon bun, this would be wrong, too.

    The term “Vegan Chicken Chips” for a product that does not contain chicken is simply like “Apple Sauce” without apples.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 minutes ago

      What about bacon chips that contain no bacon?

      Or that’s alright because it’s bacon spices?

      Lmao people are stupid.

    • stay_on_target@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Rocky mountain oysters contain no oysters. Head cheese is not cheese. Hen of the woods is not a bird. Welsh rabbit includes 0% rabbit. Ants on a log, Cowboy caviar, Bear claws… refried beans are… gasp… only fried once.

      Its all made up and the points don’t matter, until you start threatening profits.

    • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      22 hours ago

      the problem is that they’re banning words like “steak” which isn’t about ingredients

      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.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The point here is that nobody really cares for middle English name origins. Ask 100 random people what “steak” is, and I’d be surprized if you did not get at least 99 answers that it’s meat.

    • monogram@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I keep saying the meat alternative producers need to come together and make new words and all use the same ones

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Part of the problem is with discoverability. If you make a completely new word, people have no idea what your product is like, so they’re unlikely to try it.

        I think the best solution for them is to use words similar to the animal product, but obviously different, like “chick’n” or “chickenless” for example. I prefer the latter because it’s more explicit about not being chicken.

        But yeah, getting some standardization on it would be a big step in the right direction.

      • Denvil@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I had vegan bacon at one point, and it was NOT bacon, not even close. But it WAS good, it just needs an entirely different name.

          • solbear@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            22 hours ago

            I very much agree, but having these “substitutes” was something that facilitated cutting out meat for me, as all cooking I used to know revolved around meat as the main ingredient. In that sense these product serve a usefulness in reducing the threshold to move away from meat in the first place.