[igetspam]

This is stupid. Meat is not solely used to describe the output of slaughter. I'll even help you out:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/meat

We've used "meat" to describe lots of things that we eat for a very long time. This is purely bending the knee to a lobby and hyper regulation of enterprise. It makes sense since that's a core value of republican... wait a second! What's happening? What about free enterprise and not having to do things that go against your personal values in business, like serving The Gays or paying for birth control????

Nobody is fooled. It's called "Beyond Beef," not "Beef." This regulation would make it illegal to label something as "Not Chicken" because lobbyist convinced the state that Texans are too stupid and illiterate to recognize anything but the word "Chicken." Frankly, this law is f'ing insulting. I live in Texas and I know how to read.

Full disclosure: I'm not vegan or even vegetarian.

[drewrv]

> Meat is not solely the used to describe the output of slaughter.

Reminds me of this bit from an underrated sitcom I binged a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN4V_tgXuNY

I'm surprised the lawmakers didn't try to regulate "tuna steaks" out of existence.

[astura]

Watch out, once someone starts successfully selling prepackaged cauliflower steaks then they'll come to take "steak" away too.

[dzhiurgis]

The biggest advertising lie from all these companies was "it's so good that you can't tell it apart, vegetarians even sick from it". If you ever tried it, it's not Beyond Beef, it's more of Near Rubbish.

[voisin]

Can you recognize that some people hold different opinions from you? You feel that way - great. But clearly not everyone does, and labelling the product as what it’s historical analogue is allows people to have a sense of what they are getting. Did the designer try to mimic beef, or chicken, or pork, or what? It’s handy for the newly curious.

[dzhiurgis]

Unsure what's the personal attack for, but to answer the second part of your comment - should we also allow labelling quinoa as pork imitation? I mean it has the protein...

It's handy to know when you are in substitutes section and seeing what is what. Hijacking SKU is fraud.

[tablespoon]

> We've used "meat" to describe lots of things that we eat for a very long time.

That's not a very good argument. Those other uses are only valid in very specific contexts. If someone ordered "extra meat" for their sandwich, and the restaurant threw in some apple slices (as in meat = "the edible part of anything, as a fruit or nut"), pretty much everyone would find that to be scammy.

> Nobody is fooled. It's called "Beyond Beef," not "Beef."

Yet. This fake "beef" is currently a trendy novelty product. If/when it becomes cheaper than real beef, I guarantee you that there will be concerted attempts to trick people into buying it.

These kinds of naming standards are necessary. For instance the difference between "frozen dairy dessert" and "ice cream" (which as a specific government enforced definition). They're both marketed like ice cream, but if I see the former label, I know not to buy it because it's cost-reduced crap (e.g. they whipped so much air into it it can't be called ice cream anymore).

[igetspam]

> If someone ordered "extra meat" for their sandwich, and the restaurant threw in some apple slices

I guess that depends, is it an apple sandwich or a chicken sandwich? Context clues come into play. If I ordered a Beyond Beef sandwich and asked for extra meat, do you think I'd be asking for pork?

> is currently a trendy novelty product.

Your bias is showing. Nobody looking at the actual market would agree. Major players in factory farming are getting into the act. They not only don't see it as a novelty but also they see how good the margins are.

> when it becomes cheaper than real beef, I guarantee you that there will be concerted attempts to trick people into buying it.

Why would there need to be an effort to trick people and why would it be the non animal products doing the tricking? When it becomes cheaper then animal based meats, wouldn't it be the ranching industry that would benefit from market manipulation?

> I know not to buy it because it's cost-reduced crap

Cool. Biased and loudly subjective. Double points.

I get it. You've put some part of your personal identity politics on making sure people know what you eat. Your arguments are broken though. This is the type of rhetoric that stems from a fragile ego. I'm not saying your ego is fragile but it's whipped so full of air that it can't be called confident any more. (See what I did there?)