If plant-based foods are so good then sell them as so. Don't sell them as $adjective meat. If your whole business idea is based on misleading customers, perhaps it's not that good.
However I think it makes sense to name new things based on what they look or feel like, as long as an adjective is there to clear any ambiguity.
For example no one has an issue with coconut milk, although it’s not milk? In my opinion if an almond milk is labeled as just « milk », yeah that’s a problem, it’s deceptive. If it’s labeled as « almond milk », seems pretty clear to me? Same for « vegetal steak » or « chickpea sausage » or whatever. Or even « turkey bacon » to stay in the meat products.
Some of these rulings are just out of spite, and not to protect consumers, and it’s not really a good thing.
https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/loophole-california-champagne...
« Steak » is not a brand, neither is « milk » or « sausage ».
Another example would be « California Kobe steak », it doesn’t exist. « California wagyu » sure, go for it, but not Kobe.
That’s not just a problem with « made in China » copycats, the US is a big offender too in this regard. I’d hate to be a consumer in the US because there’s no way to be sure about what you buy.
I guess get ready to cringe again, what is the big deal? Just seems like protectionism.
- first for the consumer. If everything is named « champagne », it stops existing. It means there’s no way to know if you’re getting champagne or a sparkling wine from somewhere else. As a consumer I want to know what I’m getting. Sparkling wine made with a soda stream is not champagne, yet it seems you would be enclined to allow it. It’s like a brand or a trademark, you can’t use the name « Channel » or « Microsoft », same thing goes for food products.
- for the producers, they have to follow strict rules to label their wine as Champagne, and they’re proud of their product. Would you add Picasso’s signature on a painting made in his style and expect it to be okay?
/s