[jgwil2]

But there are companies that have already built up brand recognition using these names. This regulation places an unfair burden on them.

In any case, if your premise that people are not silly is correct, surely they don't need to be protected from confusing animal meat with meat substitutes.

[King-Aaron]

True, but if the companies already have good brand recognition, then a label change shouldn't affect their current sales. I'm sure the marketing teams will come up with something to assist with new customers.

Society as a whole seems to be progressing towards a lower meat intake diet, so I would think it's likely that new and existing brands of meat alternatives will continue to do well.

[jgwil2]

> if the companies already have good brand recognition, then a label change shouldn't affect their current sales.

People recognize a brand by the label. A label change is precisely the kind of thing that would negatively impact brand recognition.

> I'm sure the marketing teams will come up with something to assist with new customers.

That costs money. Hence the unfair burden.

[King-Aaron]

If their products are good they will gain popularity on their own merit.

[jgwil2]

So any burdensome regulation may be imposed on any sector because, "If their products are good they will gain popularity on their own merit." Got it.