QotNews Hacker News, Reddit, Lobsters, and Tildes articles rendered in reader mode.
If plant-based foods must be more honest, let’s do the same for meat – fancy some ‘cow muscle’? At a time when we face urgent challenges such as the climate crisis, encouraging more plant-based eating is widely recognized as part of the solution.
This has to be the meat industry not wanting a piece of their pie taken away. What customer would be confused about "oat milk" from "dairy milk"? Given we have things like peanut butter (which is not dairy butter), coconut milk (for Thai curries), and hot dogs (which are not made out of dogs), why is plant-based alternatives being treated like this? This is just silly, and makes me want to support the plant-based options more.
Sadly it’s a stats game. The number of people realizing this is driven by industry sentiment (i.e. lobbying) and not a consumer sentiment, versus the number of people supporting this because it’s something nebulous to get mad about is annoyingly imbalanced atm. This world is ridiculous.
I mean to be fair. I agree with the article here. Let’s go ahead and label everything truthfully. I am actually in favor of more labeling and transparency for customers. But a 100% should go both ways and things like meat should have to be more transparent as well.
But is “soy milk” really any less truthful than peanut butter or coconut milk? I agree with you that food should be labeled more truthfully, I just reject the premise that plant-based foods are labeled untruthfully. If anything they usually have the clearest labels regarding what’s contained in the product.
I mean, I think it’s a find what we mean by truthful. Do I think it is misleading or a lie? No I think it’s fair to say that there are broader terms you can use to describe any set of products like that.
However, I am generally a fan of very simple and descriptive labeling. And obviously specifying the primary ingredient provides what I think is good and relevant information for consumers.
"Last week, European policymakers decided that plant-based foods should no longer be marketed with terms such as “chicken”, “bacon” or “steak”. The fear seems to be that shoppers might accidentally buy veggie bacon thinking it came from an actual pig. The change applies to the UK too, because of our trade agreement with Europe.
After considerable pushback from organisations including the one I work with, the Vegetarian Society, and many food brands, words such as “burger”, “nuggets” and “sausage” – as in, vegan sausage rolls – are still permitted, provided the packaging makes clear they are plant-based. But even those allowances could yet be revisited.
The proposal arrived without an impact assessment and will affect UK exports. More worryingly, it sets a precedent. Apparently, Europe’s biggest regulatory threat is the menace of the dangerously misleading plant-based steak. But if clarity is truly the goal, there’s an obvious question: why stop at plant-based foods?
If lawmakers want absolute transparency in food naming, then meat products could just as easily be required to use their literal descriptions. After all, beef steak is cow muscle. Pork chop is usually pig rib. Bacon is often salt-cured pig belly. Chicken nuggets? Formed chicken parts. And many sausages would require far less appetising names.
Sounds absurd? That’s precisely the point.
Food names have never been strictly literal. If they were, a lot of them would need a serious rethink. There are no canines in hotdogs. There are no amphibians in toad in the hole. Ladyfingers contain no fingers. Food language is ultimately a product of culture, tradition and familiarity.
The words “burger”, “sausage” and “steak” describe formats and cooking styles as much as ingredients. A burger is simply a patty. A sausage is food shaped into a tube and cooked. These are culinary categories, not zoological claims. Plant-based foods use these familiar terms as shorthand to help shoppers understand what a product is and how to cook it.
Meanwhile, meat marketing relies on something else entirely: the pastoral myth. Packaging shows Ye Olde Red Barn, green fields and smiling animals – imagery far removed from modern industrial livestock production. We’ve all seen the cheerful pigs outside butcher shops wielding knives to slaughter their kin, or happy chickens advertising fried nuggets. The suggestion seems to be that animals are enthusiastically participating in their own consumption. If lawmakers are truly worried about consumer misunderstanding and transparency, they might start by addressing the wildly misleading imagery used in meat marketing.
In fact, consumers are far less confused than critics suggest. A YouGov survey in late 2025 found that 92% of Britons said they had never bought, or could not recall buying, a plant-based sausage or burger thinking it contained meat. Clear labels already appear prominently on packaging through certification schemes such as those run by the Vegetarian Society.
No one believes a bean burger contains beef. Nobody assumes a veggie sausage came from a pig. Shoppers are not wandering supermarket aisles in a haze of confusion, clutching tofu and wondering which end of the cow it came from. People choose plant-based products deliberately, often for environmental, ethical or health reasons.
So what problem is actually being solved?
Restrictions on plant-based terminology risk doing the opposite of helping consumers. They create barriers to innovation and make it harder for people to find familiar alternatives to foods they already know how to cook. For someone beginning to incorporate more plant-based meals into their diet, familiarity matters. Language helps people navigate change, and banning familiar words only makes that transition harder.
At a time when we face urgent challenges such as the climate crisis, biodiversity loss, food security and public health problems, encouraging more plant-based eating is widely recognised as part of the solution. Creating linguistic hurdles for plant-based foods sends exactly the wrong signal. And if we’re suddenly so concerned about names reflecting reality, then maybe it’s time to start being honest across the board. Charred cow-muscle tissue with a side of fried potato sticks*,* anyone?"
The water and carbon footprint of a beef burger (regardless of how it's raised) vs. a bean burger are massive. Beans use less water, pollute our waters less, lead to less deforestation (which is being done now in the Amazon to make room for more beef) and fewer resources overall.
Yeah, but I like the way a real burger tastes better. I got no qualms getting impossible burgers when they are on sale, but they still don’t compare to the real thing.
Lol I'm sure my total lifetime consumption of meat has not even scratched the amount of pollution one private jet has contributed to the issue. Thank you for such an elucidating and nuanced comment.
Type your assumption into any AI and look at the results. Animal agriculture and meat consumption FAR outpaces private jet travel. Thanks for not 1 second doubting your actions.
Edit: meat consumption by 1 person is not the problem, but by 8 billion people it is
Lol so I did just what you asked. I can switch to a plant based diet and lesson my carbon footprint by 0.5-2 tons, which is the same amount of pollution from one hour on a private jet. I understand your argument about billions of people making a difference, but there are enough things to get up in arms about societal wise, that I place more importance in than my carbon footprint. That may seem shortsighted or dumb to you, but we all have different issues we weight differently.
You skipped the 8 billion people part of the equation. Average 1.25 tons and then multiply it by 8 billion.
That's also just carbon, largely ignoring the deforestation, pollution and water issues raising cattle inherently cause.
There is no reality where 8 billion people switch to plant-based diets. Also, plant-based diets are inefficient for my nutrition needs. I can eat one serving of tofu for 190kcal and 19g of protein, or I can have a scoop of protein powder for 120kcal and 25g of protein. You could make the argument that protein powder isn't healthy or it's too processed. Okay, if we keep things equal for a 100g serving, meat will on the whole be the better protein to kcal ratio.
And I quote: "As for other micronutrients such as vitamin D and vitamin B12, which are mostly found in animal sources, vegans may consider the consumption of fortified foods and – in the specific case of vitamin D – adequate sun exposure. Accordingly, individuals who consume a vegan diet should remain aware of potential micronutrient insufficiencies. Vegan diets generally meet protein intake recommendations, though they are usually lower in this respect than less restrictive forms of plant-based diets."
Really makes no sense… and I’ll keep calling a veggie burger a burger and soy milk, milk, and vegan butter, butter. But, in deference to this legislation, will start calling cows milk, cow secretions and pus, and dead animals, dead animal flesh.
It disturbs me that people find this less appetizing. It reinforces the idea that people are separated too far from food production. I like talking about exactly where on the animal each delicious cut is from.
I'm not saying humanity needs to eat more meat. The people who try not to think about what meat really is just perplex me.
There has been a societal unspoken rule to hide the truth of meat production, from McDonald's showing kids burgers growing in a garden to meat processors not allowing video of their animal-killing processes.
That said, I know what skeletal muscle is what I'm eating, and I think while most people dont know the term, I think pretty much all adults know that meat is muscle.
I will not consider switching to being vegetarian or vegan until the people who are the worse abusers are held to account. (Entitled rich yahoos and the military, to name two.)
""Whataboutism" or "whataboutery" (as in, "but what about X?") refers to the propaganda strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation. It is an informal fallacy that the accused party uses to avoid accountability—whether attempting to distract by shifting the conversation's focus away from their behaviour or attempting to justify themselves by pointing to the similar behaviour (which may be true or false, but irrelevant) of their opponent or another party who is not the current subject of discussion.^([1])^(".) ^(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
I know you are just trying to be an edgelord, but can you explain how my analogy is wrong? Just because someone is doing something worse doesn't make it okay for you to do something wrong.
Plus, there are multiple other reasons to go vegan/vegetarian. I eat every meal and go to sleep at night happy to know I'm not contributing to that industry. I also eat more variety of food than ever before. Switching is a win/win in my book.
Not trying to be an edgelord. I've been Reducing, Reusing and Recycling since the 80s.
>Just because someone is doing something worse doesn't make it okay for you to do something wrong.
:eyeroll:
I can stop breathing tomorrow, and just one plane ride for <pick-your-billionaire!> will produce ALL the carbon emissions that I would produce in the rest of my life.
You're trying to say that, while they may be committing murder I'm still committing manslaughter. Not true. They're not committing murder, they're committing genocide.
>Plus, there are multiple other reasons to go vegan/vegetarian. I eat every meal and go to sleep at night happy to know I'm not contributing to that industry. I also eat more variety of food than ever before. Switching is a win/win in my book.
Good for you! You made a choice and you're happy with it!
What gives you the right to think you can force it on others?
Valgor | 7 hours ago
This has to be the meat industry not wanting a piece of their pie taken away. What customer would be confused about "oat milk" from "dairy milk"? Given we have things like peanut butter (which is not dairy butter), coconut milk (for Thai curries), and hot dogs (which are not made out of dogs), why is plant-based alternatives being treated like this? This is just silly, and makes me want to support the plant-based options more.
janitorial-duties | 6 hours ago
Sadly it’s a stats game. The number of people realizing this is driven by industry sentiment (i.e. lobbying) and not a consumer sentiment, versus the number of people supporting this because it’s something nebulous to get mad about is annoyingly imbalanced atm. This world is ridiculous.
Sptsjunkie | 5 hours ago
I mean to be fair. I agree with the article here. Let’s go ahead and label everything truthfully. I am actually in favor of more labeling and transparency for customers. But a 100% should go both ways and things like meat should have to be more transparent as well.
fsmpastafarian | 2 hours ago
But is “soy milk” really any less truthful than peanut butter or coconut milk? I agree with you that food should be labeled more truthfully, I just reject the premise that plant-based foods are labeled untruthfully. If anything they usually have the clearest labels regarding what’s contained in the product.
Sptsjunkie | 2 hours ago
I mean, I think it’s a find what we mean by truthful. Do I think it is misleading or a lie? No I think it’s fair to say that there are broader terms you can use to describe any set of products like that.
However, I am generally a fan of very simple and descriptive labeling. And obviously specifying the primary ingredient provides what I think is good and relevant information for consumers.
[OP] James_Fortis | 7 hours ago
"Last week, European policymakers decided that plant-based foods should no longer be marketed with terms such as “chicken”, “bacon” or “steak”. The fear seems to be that shoppers might accidentally buy veggie bacon thinking it came from an actual pig. The change applies to the UK too, because of our trade agreement with Europe.
After considerable pushback from organisations including the one I work with, the Vegetarian Society, and many food brands, words such as “burger”, “nuggets” and “sausage” – as in, vegan sausage rolls – are still permitted, provided the packaging makes clear they are plant-based. But even those allowances could yet be revisited.
The proposal arrived without an impact assessment and will affect UK exports. More worryingly, it sets a precedent. Apparently, Europe’s biggest regulatory threat is the menace of the dangerously misleading plant-based steak. But if clarity is truly the goal, there’s an obvious question: why stop at plant-based foods?
If lawmakers want absolute transparency in food naming, then meat products could just as easily be required to use their literal descriptions. After all, beef steak is cow muscle. Pork chop is usually pig rib. Bacon is often salt-cured pig belly. Chicken nuggets? Formed chicken parts. And many sausages would require far less appetising names.
Sounds absurd? That’s precisely the point.
Food names have never been strictly literal. If they were, a lot of them would need a serious rethink. There are no canines in hotdogs. There are no amphibians in toad in the hole. Ladyfingers contain no fingers. Food language is ultimately a product of culture, tradition and familiarity.
The words “burger”, “sausage” and “steak” describe formats and cooking styles as much as ingredients. A burger is simply a patty. A sausage is food shaped into a tube and cooked. These are culinary categories, not zoological claims. Plant-based foods use these familiar terms as shorthand to help shoppers understand what a product is and how to cook it.
Meanwhile, meat marketing relies on something else entirely: the pastoral myth. Packaging shows Ye Olde Red Barn, green fields and smiling animals – imagery far removed from modern industrial livestock production. We’ve all seen the cheerful pigs outside butcher shops wielding knives to slaughter their kin, or happy chickens advertising fried nuggets. The suggestion seems to be that animals are enthusiastically participating in their own consumption. If lawmakers are truly worried about consumer misunderstanding and transparency, they might start by addressing the wildly misleading imagery used in meat marketing.
In fact, consumers are far less confused than critics suggest. A YouGov survey in late 2025 found that 92% of Britons said they had never bought, or could not recall buying, a plant-based sausage or burger thinking it contained meat. Clear labels already appear prominently on packaging through certification schemes such as those run by the Vegetarian Society.
No one believes a bean burger contains beef. Nobody assumes a veggie sausage came from a pig. Shoppers are not wandering supermarket aisles in a haze of confusion, clutching tofu and wondering which end of the cow it came from. People choose plant-based products deliberately, often for environmental, ethical or health reasons.
So what problem is actually being solved?
Restrictions on plant-based terminology risk doing the opposite of helping consumers. They create barriers to innovation and make it harder for people to find familiar alternatives to foods they already know how to cook. For someone beginning to incorporate more plant-based meals into their diet, familiarity matters. Language helps people navigate change, and banning familiar words only makes that transition harder.
At a time when we face urgent challenges such as the climate crisis, biodiversity loss, food security and public health problems, encouraging more plant-based eating is widely recognised as part of the solution. Creating linguistic hurdles for plant-based foods sends exactly the wrong signal. And if we’re suddenly so concerned about names reflecting reality, then maybe it’s time to start being honest across the board. Charred cow-muscle tissue with a side of fried potato sticks*,* anyone?"
GrumpySquirrel2016 | 7 hours ago
The water and carbon footprint of a beef burger (regardless of how it's raised) vs. a bean burger are massive. Beans use less water, pollute our waters less, lead to less deforestation (which is being done now in the Amazon to make room for more beef) and fewer resources overall.
thegrimmreality | 6 hours ago
Yeah, but I like the way a real burger tastes better. I got no qualms getting impossible burgers when they are on sale, but they still don’t compare to the real thing.
sf_person | 4 hours ago
For my 5s enjoyment let the world burn to ashes!
thegrimmreality | 4 hours ago
Lol I'm sure my total lifetime consumption of meat has not even scratched the amount of pollution one private jet has contributed to the issue. Thank you for such an elucidating and nuanced comment.
sf_person | 3 hours ago
Type your assumption into any AI and look at the results. Animal agriculture and meat consumption FAR outpaces private jet travel. Thanks for not 1 second doubting your actions.
Edit: meat consumption by 1 person is not the problem, but by 8 billion people it is
NexusOne99 | 2 hours ago
"type your assumption into any AI"
The carbon footprint of that is probably larger than having a burger, and likely to produce about as accurate a result as asking said burger.
thegrimmreality | 3 hours ago
Lol so I did just what you asked. I can switch to a plant based diet and lesson my carbon footprint by 0.5-2 tons, which is the same amount of pollution from one hour on a private jet. I understand your argument about billions of people making a difference, but there are enough things to get up in arms about societal wise, that I place more importance in than my carbon footprint. That may seem shortsighted or dumb to you, but we all have different issues we weight differently.
GrumpySquirrel2016 | 2 hours ago
You skipped the 8 billion people part of the equation. Average 1.25 tons and then multiply it by 8 billion. That's also just carbon, largely ignoring the deforestation, pollution and water issues raising cattle inherently cause.
thegrimmreality | 2 hours ago
There is no reality where 8 billion people switch to plant-based diets. Also, plant-based diets are inefficient for my nutrition needs. I can eat one serving of tofu for 190kcal and 19g of protein, or I can have a scoop of protein powder for 120kcal and 25g of protein. You could make the argument that protein powder isn't healthy or it's too processed. Okay, if we keep things equal for a 100g serving, meat will on the whole be the better protein to kcal ratio.
GrumpySquirrel2016 | an hour ago
https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/f0fadbba-3ba7-4689-be95-63574cdff400/content
thegrimmreality | an hour ago
And I quote: "As for other micronutrients such as vitamin D and vitamin B12, which are mostly found in animal sources, vegans may consider the consumption of fortified foods and – in the specific case of vitamin D – adequate sun exposure. Accordingly, individuals who consume a vegan diet should remain aware of potential micronutrient insufficiencies. Vegan diets generally meet protein intake recommendations, though they are usually lower in this respect than less restrictive forms of plant-based diets."
Veganeconow | 7 hours ago
Really makes no sense… and I’ll keep calling a veggie burger a burger and soy milk, milk, and vegan butter, butter. But, in deference to this legislation, will start calling cows milk, cow secretions and pus, and dead animals, dead animal flesh.
nonfish | 5 hours ago
I'll agree on everything except vegan butter. That's just expensive margarine with a fancier name!
YinzaJagoff | 5 hours ago
I like beyond burgers but they’re really expensive
Nessie | 6 hours ago
Some cow muscle? Yes please!
For_Iconoclasm | 2 hours ago
It disturbs me that people find this less appetizing. It reinforces the idea that people are separated too far from food production. I like talking about exactly where on the animal each delicious cut is from.
I'm not saying humanity needs to eat more meat. The people who try not to think about what meat really is just perplex me.
Phill_Cyberman | 2 hours ago
There has been a societal unspoken rule to hide the truth of meat production, from McDonald's showing kids burgers growing in a garden to meat processors not allowing video of their animal-killing processes.
That said, I know what skeletal muscle is what I'm eating, and I think while most people dont know the term, I think pretty much all adults know that meat is muscle.
gorpie97 | 5 hours ago
I will not consider switching to being vegetarian or vegan until the people who are the worse abusers are held to account. (Entitled rich yahoos and the military, to name two.)
Valgor | 4 hours ago
There is someone out there murdering someone else right now. Does that mean it is okay for me to go punch someone?
gorpie97 | 4 hours ago
Nice aNaLoGy.
We can do everything, and it won't be enough.
I'm sure not going to let an astroturfed opinion that they pay for tell me what to do.
cindyx7102 | 4 hours ago
""Whataboutism" or "whataboutery" (as in, "but what about X?") refers to the propaganda strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation. It is an informal fallacy that the accused party uses to avoid accountability—whether attempting to distract by shifting the conversation's focus away from their behaviour or attempting to justify themselves by pointing to the similar behaviour (which may be true or false, but irrelevant) of their opponent or another party who is not the current subject of discussion.^([1])^(".) ^(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
gorpie97 | 3 hours ago
If we all die, how long before the planet becomes unlivable due to their living habits?
If they all die (or stop being billionaires), problem solved.
EDIT: Or they could fly off to Mars with Elon.
gorpie97 | 3 hours ago
I. will not. become a vegetarian. until other, worse actors, start doing their fucking fair share.
EDIT: That's not whataboutism.
Valgor | 3 hours ago
I know you are just trying to be an edgelord, but can you explain how my analogy is wrong? Just because someone is doing something worse doesn't make it okay for you to do something wrong.
Plus, there are multiple other reasons to go vegan/vegetarian. I eat every meal and go to sleep at night happy to know I'm not contributing to that industry. I also eat more variety of food than ever before. Switching is a win/win in my book.
gorpie97 | 2 hours ago
Not trying to be an edgelord. I've been Reducing, Reusing and Recycling since the 80s.
>Just because someone is doing something worse doesn't make it okay for you to do something wrong.
:eyeroll:
I can stop breathing tomorrow, and just one plane ride for <pick-your-billionaire!> will produce ALL the carbon emissions that I would produce in the rest of my life.
You're trying to say that, while they may be committing murder I'm still committing manslaughter. Not true. They're not committing murder, they're committing genocide. >Plus, there are multiple other reasons to go vegan/vegetarian. I eat every meal and go to sleep at night happy to know I'm not contributing to that industry. I also eat more variety of food than ever before. Switching is a win/win in my book.
Good for you! You made a choice and you're happy with it!
What gives you the right to think you can force it on others?