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
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 hours ago

Product labels in general need to be more clear. I'm mildly allergic to soy, and half my grocery shopping is squinting at ingredient labels. I can't even get the cheap peanut butter any more, because you have to pay twice as much if you want just peanuts in it.

My doctor wants me to avoid legumes in general, but *laughs in poverty*

[–] AnalogNotDigital@lemmy.wtf 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly good for them. They aren't 'meatless meatballs' they are something else.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 1 points 6 hours ago

You can adopt different terms, or use foreign terms. Very common, I think turkey has a lot of vegan meatball alternatives all labelled 'kofte'

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

"Chicken" and "Pork"? Sure, understandable... I guess. If they were going after, "Milk" that would be a whole other thing.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 16 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

They did this in Germany! Oat milk can't legally be called "milk", so it's instead "oat drink".

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 24 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

That seems ridiculous to me considering coconut milk has been called as such since the 1700s and I haven't seen a coconuts nipples.

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 25 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] november@lemmy.vg 16 points 16 hours ago
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago

It absolutely is, especially since there are products with "milk" in their name that aren't edible (e.g. "Scheuermilch", apparently scouring cream in English). It's nothing but populism and lobbying.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

And almond milk is almost 1000 years old, and Middle-English called it "almonde mylk"

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/almond_milk

So yeah, Big Dairy propaganda

[–] dumnezero@piefed.social 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Seems like a great test to see if your government is far-right.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 10 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

passed in France too. More to do with the meat lobby than far right.

also, I met meat fanatics even among anarcho-communists 🤷 they were even the majority 🤦

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 points 10 hours ago

Well I never.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours 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 18 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 17 hours ago

Jerusalem Artichokes are neither artichokes nor from Jerusalem.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago

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

[–] Praxinoscope@lemm.ee 11 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

How much butter is in peanut butter?

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Or in Shea butter, yes.

[–] TwanHE@lemmy.world 3 points 15 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 21 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 19 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 20 hours ago

Absolutely fine with that idea.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 14 points 20 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 13 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 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Indeed a shitty name, too.