Texas lawmakers approve bill banning 'meat' & 'beef' on plant-based food labels • Hacker News Board

Re: Texas lawmakers approve bill banning 'meat' & 'beef' on plant-based food labels

#91

Post by jschwartzi » Thu, May 13, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

benjohnson wrote: post #44

jschwartzi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a terrible loss for me as a person to be able to go to the store and buy a "milk" that doesn't come from a cow but that I can put on breakfast cereal and drink with my coffee. Meanwhile I don't see Texas aggressively defending the truth that a tomato is really a fruit and shouldn't be placed with other vegetables in the store.

For culinary use, Tomatoes are a fruit. That may differ from the biological definition but that's ok.

For culinary use Beyond is a meat. That differs from the biological definition but most people understand that.

Re: Texas lawmakers approve bill banning 'meat' & 'beef' on plant-based food labels

#92

Post by ub99 » Thu, May 13, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #32

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying we should rename the popular nut spread (the one that pairs well with jelly) to something like "peanut margarine"?

Yes. Or "peanut spread", "peanut smooth", "peanut stuff". There are dozens of more honest options.

By this standard words can have only a single meaning. If they have more than one meaning it’s dishonest.

Re: Texas lawmakers approve bill banning 'meat' & 'beef' on plant-based food labels

#93

Post by jgwil2 » Thu, May 13, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

King-Aaron wrote: post #80

jgwil2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if the companies already have good brand recognition, then a label change shouldn't affect their current sales. People recognize a brand by the label. A label change is precisely the kind of thing that would negatively impact brand recognition. > I'm sure the marketing teams will come up with something to assist with new customers. That costs money. Hence the unfair burden.

If their products are good they will gain popularity on their own merit.

So any burdensome regulation may be imposed on any sector because, "If their products are good they will gain popularity on their own merit." Got it.

Re: Texas lawmakers approve bill banning 'meat' & 'beef' on plant-based food labels

#94

Post by benjohnson » Thu, May 13, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #91

benjohnson wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For culinary use, Tomatoes are a fruit. That may differ from the biological definition but that's ok.

For culinary use Beyond is a meat. That differs from the biological definition but most people understand that.

And to add a bit of history - meat is also used for nut-meat.

Re: Texas lawmakers approve bill banning 'meat' & 'beef' on plant-based food labels

#95

Post by superkuh » Fri, May 14, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

Digory wrote: post #61

plntbsd wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I hate to burst your bubble but governments, especially local do not work like this. More than likely a few lawmakers got generous donations from Tyson, Cargill et all

Tyson? Nah, these are the thousands of ranchers spread around Texas. Tyson looks forward to selling you chicken-a-la-vat, and will pay handily to get a federal exception to this rule in a few years.

Vat chicken would be awesome. Tissue culture is the future for meat. But textured vegetable protein is not.

Re: Texas lawmakers approve bill banning 'meat' & 'beef' on plant-based food labels

#96

Post by igetspam » Sun, May 16, 2021, 1:00 AM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #81

igetspam wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is stupid. Meat is not solely used to describe the output of slaughter. I'll even help you out: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/meat We've used "meat" to describe lots of things that we eat for a very long time. This is purely bending the knee to a lobby and hyper regulation of enterprise. It makes sense since that's a core value of republican... wait a second! What's happening? What about free enterprise and…

> 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 "…

> If someone ordered "extra meat" for their sandwich, and the restaurant threw in some apple slices

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?)