|
|
|
|
|
|
by tablespoon
1865 days ago
|
|
|
> 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). |
|
|
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?)