3 ms·

Protecting lazy and inattentive shoppers from accidentally buying a plant based product is sufficient reason for heavy handed regulation? This is a non problem

• ncallaway 8y ago
  > Protecting lazy and inattentive shoppers from accidentally buying a plant based product is sufficient reason for heavy handed regulation? Where do you draw the line for what deceptive labeling is allowed and what isn't? How many of the other existing food labeling regulations should we throw out? What if I label my package to look _very_ similar to a meat product, but put the words "not real meat" in size 8 font on the bottom of the package, is that acceptable?
  • gbrown 8y ago
    > What if I label my package to look _very_ similar to a meat product, but put the words "not real meat" Then I think you'd have a complaint under existing laws, rather than trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill. The same would be true in reverse, if a product claimed prominently to be tofu based but contained meat. I think it's very, very telling that part of the desired result for the meat industry is to prevent these products from sharing shelf space.
    • CompanionCuuube 8y ago
      And if non-Kosher food tried to get put in the Kosher food section and went under brands such as Beyond Kosher?
    • ncallaway 8y ago
      > I think it's very, very telling that part of the desired result for the meat industry is to prevent these products from sharing shelf space. I think that's fair. We already have a healthy set of regulatory requirements around product labeling, and I'm not really opposed to tweaking the labeling requirements around meat vs non-meat products. Regulating shelf-space does seem to be crossing an unnecessary line.
• Viliam1234 8y ago
  Any kind of fraud can be blamed on "lazy and inattentive shoppers", so it's just a question of where do we draw the line.