this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
64 points (95.7% liked)

Vegan

1102 readers
161 users here now

A community to discuss anything related to veganism.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Absolutely OK. If "something something X" is the name of your product, it needs to contain X to a certain degree. If there was no strawberry in strawberry jam, you would complain. If there was no cinnamon in a cinnamon bun, this would be wrong, too.

The term "Vegan Chicken Chips" for a product that does not contain chicken is simply like "Apple Sauce" without apples.

[–] stay_on_target@lemmy.world 19 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Rocky mountain oysters contain no oysters. Head cheese is not cheese. Hen of the woods is not a bird. Welsh rabbit includes 0% rabbit. Ants on a log, Cowboy caviar, Bear claws... refried beans are.. gasp.. only fried once.

Its all made up and the points don't matter, until you start threatening profits.

[–] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 8 points 19 hours ago

Jerusalem Artichokes are neither artichokes nor from Jerusalem.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago

Indeed. Time to clean up some of those names, too.

[–] Praxinoscope@lemm.ee 11 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

How much butter is in peanut butter?

[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 minutes ago

There aren't even any nuts in it! It's all a lie!

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

Or in Shea butter, yes.

[–] TwanHE@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

That's why it shouldn't be called peanut butter anyways. Let's name it something logical like peanut cheese (pindakaas)

[–] monogram@feddit.nl 18 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

I keep saying the meat alternative producers need to come together and make new words and all use the same ones

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 12 points 21 hours ago

Part of the problem is with discoverability. If you make a completely new word, people have no idea what your product is like, so they're unlikely to try it.

I think the best solution for them is to use words similar to the animal product, but obviously different, like "chick'n" or "chickenless" for example. I prefer the latter because it's more explicit about not being chicken.

But yeah, getting some standardization on it would be a big step in the right direction.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Absolutely fine with that idea.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 14 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

the problem is that they're banning words like "steak" which isn't about ingredients

The word steak was written steke in Middle English, and comes from the mid-15th century Scandinavian word steik, related to the Old Norse steikja 'to roast on a stake', and so is related to the word stick or stake.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

The point here is that nobody really cares for middle English name origins. Ask 100 random people what "steak" is, and I'd be surprized if you did not get at least 99 answers that it's meat.

[–] november@lemmy.vg 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

Indeed a shitty name, too.