SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the one-soy-based-hemispherical-cross-section-please dept.
A new law in Mississippi(1) makes it illegal to refer to plant and cell-culture based patties as 'burgers'.
The law would also prohibit the use of "burger" or "dog" in relation to vat-grown, cell-based food, which is made of meat. The statute reserves these appelations for foodstuffs derived from "slaughtered livestock."
The law has naturally been challenged by parties such as the Good Food Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union among others. In a nutshell
The contention on the meat industry side is:
Mike McCormick, president of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation: "This bill will protect our cattle farmers from having to compete with products not harvested from an animal."
The contention on the other side is:
"There's nothing misleading about the name of a veggie burger, or vegan hot dog, or seitan bacon," Almy, a lawyer on the Missouri case, told me. "The packages clearly disclose that this is plant-based food that has the taste or texture of this familiar food."
A typical American would likely fall somewhere between these two views.
I fully understand (and at times enjoy) 'veggie burgers', however I had to look up 'seitan bacon' (FYI - a traditional Japanese wheat based food that is meat-like) and would not have known what it was at a glance (does super-seitan bacon go to 9000 calories?)
So where do patrons of Soylent Words-Related-to-Current-Happenings fall on this one?
(1) - Note TFA bounces between Missouri and Mississippi actions. There are similar labeling laws in both states. SB 627 in Missouri and SB 2922 in Mississippi.
Related: U.S. Cattlemen's Association Wants an Official Definition of "Meat"
Regulation Coming to Lab-Grown Meat
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 08 2019, @08:52AM (1 child)
It's because lab based 'meats' and others are becoming increasingly misleading with their labeling. For instance would you think an "Impossible Burger" or "Beyond Burger" do you think these clearly indicate that the product is the product of corporate labs working to produce a product that resembles the texture and flavor of a burger while being made of entirely different components? And this is made even more relevant by the fact that these are the sort of products many people would prefer not to eat and so if they do eat them it's going to be because they were misled as to what they were consuming. That's a deeply personal violation of a consumer since it's not just a knock off product or trinket, but stuff you are putting inside of your body and consuming.
Another good example even given in the article synopses. Seitan is apparently a non-meat product in Japan. I've never heard of it and I expect the vast majority of Americans have not either. Seeing "seitan bacon" on something that seems to be bacon is going to mislead people. The most crucial part is that I think this deception is intentional on part of the corporations manufacturing these products.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 09 2019, @01:57AM
Not at all.
Yes, since I know what those are. In addition, the presence of the adjective is a clear warning sign that one should ask, if one doesn't so know.
Which let us note, is not very relevant. They get enough such veggie burgers and they'll learn to ask before they buy. The disease is the cure.
Well, then show it. Really, this is the only relevant part of your entire post.
The thing is I don't buy at all that these businesses get by on deceiving the public. This isn't a business that can get by on burning a few gullible people once (particularly since the examples you give are likely to result in refunds!). And they're trying legitimately to get a product that looks, tastes, and is used much like the meat versions of burgers and bacon. Why can't they use similar names for similar products?
Finally, this is a massive violation of free speech. Contrary to your claim, it's quite clear what product they're selling. Instead, I see this as an abusive attempt to squelch rival competitors.