By your logic, so would be the beefsteak tomato, almond milk, coco cream, butternut… Which are actual vegetables.
If you consider yourself not capable enough to read the ingredients when selecting a product to buy, that’s on you. This is what the CJEU is saying: there is no misleading in using these terms. There has been zero recorded intent at misleading consumers from plant based alternatives producers.
Do you get mad at the “misleading animal names” meme?
I find it funny too that further down they’re throwing things like “almond milk” under the bus despite the fact that plant milk is not nearly novel and has been called “milk” for centuries. This isn’t just them conservatively gatekeeping novel language like “chick’n”. It’s in fact trying to regressively erase this longstanding and commonly understood usage of “milk” because it hurts their feelings. “Peanut butter” hasn’t been called “butter” for nearly as long, but I’m sure they’d pull a “that’s not the same tho!!” if you brought it up as evidence that their argument is ad hoc nonsense.
And when their argument for not calling it “almond milk” is baseless garbage meant to mask “I just don’t like it, waaaah”, why should we take them seriously when it comes to plant-based meats?
Happy to keep debating. Less so if we’re just going to trade insults. If you have a solid point, make it, no need to get nasty.
The CJEU ruling did say that member states can’t ban plant-based products from using meat-related terms if the labeling is clear. That’s literally what it ruled. You don’t get to rewrite case law just because it doesn’t fit your perspective.
No one is selling something called just “chicken” when it’s made from plants — it’s always labeled “vegan chicken”, “plant-based chicken”, etc. That’s not misleading. That’s clear communication, and it works — the CJEU said this is fine as long as the ingredients list is transparent.
Dismissing the examples of almond milk, beefsteak tomatoes, or coconut cream just because they don’t fit your argument doesn’t make them disappear. Language evolves. These aren’t “gotchas” — they’re everyday proof of how people understand food labeling in real life.
If your main concern is protecting consumers, we agree. But pretending this is some epidemic of deception when zero data backs that up? That’s just the meat lobby talking.
Then you have a problem with reality itself, I highly encourage you to visit plant based alternative aisles if you can, to ground your arguments with facts. If you can’t debate without being condescending, we’re done here. Bye.
By your logic, so would be the beefsteak tomato, almond milk, coco cream, butternut… Which are actual vegetables.
If you consider yourself not capable enough to read the ingredients when selecting a product to buy, that’s on you. This is what the CJEU is saying: there is no misleading in using these terms. There has been zero recorded intent at misleading consumers from plant based alternatives producers.
Do you get mad at the “misleading animal names” meme?
I find it funny too that further down they’re throwing things like “almond milk” under the bus despite the fact that plant milk is not nearly novel and has been called “milk” for centuries. This isn’t just them conservatively gatekeeping novel language like “chick’n”. It’s in fact trying to regressively erase this longstanding and commonly understood usage of “milk” because it hurts their feelings. “Peanut butter” hasn’t been called “butter” for nearly as long, but I’m sure they’d pull a “that’s not the same tho!!” if you brought it up as evidence that their argument is ad hoc nonsense.
And when their argument for not calling it “almond milk” is baseless garbage meant to mask “I just don’t like it, waaaah”, why should we take them seriously when it comes to plant-based meats?
Are you a little bit slow? As you struggle to comprehend the subject we are discussing.
There are certain EU and UK rules around naming. Product called chicken must contain chicken not some pulp animal feed.
This is absolutely NOT what it is saying and I don’t know if you are arguing in bad faith or you are just dim.
Let’s try again:
Burger does not imply coming from any kind of meat. You have beefburgers, chickenburgers, soyaburgers, vegiburgers etc.
Sausage also does not imply it is coming specifically from a meat.
This is all the court said.
Chicken, pork or beef are definitely implying coming from specific animals and calling some plant pulp either of these names is clearly misleading.
Comprende?
Happy to keep debating. Less so if we’re just going to trade insults. If you have a solid point, make it, no need to get nasty.
The CJEU ruling did say that member states can’t ban plant-based products from using meat-related terms if the labeling is clear. That’s literally what it ruled. You don’t get to rewrite case law just because it doesn’t fit your perspective.
No one is selling something called just “chicken” when it’s made from plants — it’s always labeled “vegan chicken”, “plant-based chicken”, etc. That’s not misleading. That’s clear communication, and it works — the CJEU said this is fine as long as the ingredients list is transparent.
Dismissing the examples of almond milk, beefsteak tomatoes, or coconut cream just because they don’t fit your argument doesn’t make them disappear. Language evolves. These aren’t “gotchas” — they’re everyday proof of how people understand food labeling in real life.
If your main concern is protecting consumers, we agree. But pretending this is some epidemic of deception when zero data backs that up? That’s just the meat lobby talking.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing.
I don’t anymore think you are that dim as nobody can be. You must be arguing in bad faith than.
“beefsteak tomatoes” is an actual NAME of these tomatoes.
almond milk & coconut cream - this is EXACTLY the same situation as with burgers.
Now, it is clear you are arguing in bad faith. Disengage.
Then you have a problem with reality itself, I highly encourage you to visit plant based alternative aisles if you can, to ground your arguments with facts. If you can’t debate without being condescending, we’re done here. Bye.