3 ms·

The wording wasn't "Vegan", it is "0% beef", and the argument is around if the cooking surface regularly adds beef to the product, is that ok? We can ignore th

The wording wasn't "Vegan", it is "0% beef", and the argument is around if the cooking surface regularly adds beef to the product, is that ok? We can ignore that last bit of your comment.

kd5bjo 7y ago
Food labeling laws generally allow for a margin of error around reported numbers, even zero. Printed calorie amounts, for example, are rounded to the nearest calorie— something reported as having no calories can in fact contain up to 0.5. By extension, anything less than 0.5% can reasonably be reported as 0% but not 0.1% or 0.0%. This is the shorthand for plus-or-minus that has been used for a long time, and gets taught in middle school[1]. [1] At least the one I attended; your curriculum may vary
- jbc1 7y ago
  I know for Australia at least, wine can be labelled as just one varietal if it's only 85% that grape. So "chardonnay" actually means "somewhere between 85-100% chardonnay". Same with regions. I was shocked by that one. Absolutely humongous margin.
- service_bus 7y ago
  They are saying the patty is 0% beef ingredients, which is factually correct. I don't think that they were intending to be misleading, and they never attempted to even say the word vegan or vegetarian. Even the article starts off with the premise that the intended market are vegans and vegetarians, which is presumptuous.. there's a whole class of people that just want to cut down on their meat consumption (myself included). This whole thing just seems like more of the holier-than-thou / all-or-nothing approach taken by many of the vegan crowd that end up doing more harm than good for their cause. This seems like a misunderstanding in advertising that's easily resolved, not a "shut it all down" sort of thing.
larnmar 7y ago
0% beef sounds accurate. If they were claiming 0.00000000000000000% beef, there might be an issue.

The wording wasn't "Vegan", it is "0% beef", and the argument is around if the cooking surface regularly adds beef to the product, is that ok? We can ignore that last bit of your comment.

kd5bjo 7y ago

Food labeling laws generally allow for a margin of error around reported numbers, even zero. Printed calorie amounts, for example, are rounded to the nearest calorie— something reported as having no calories can in fact contain up to 0.5. By extension, anything less than 0.5% can reasonably be reported as 0% but not 0.1% or 0.0%. This is the shorthand for plus-or-minus that has been used for a long time, and gets taught in middle school[1]. [1] At least the one I attended; your curriculum may vary

jbc1 7y ago
I know for Australia at least, wine can be labelled as just one varietal if it's only 85% that grape. So "chardonnay" actually means "somewhere between 85-100% chardonnay". Same with regions. I was shocked by that one. Absolutely humongous margin.
service_bus 7y ago
They are saying the patty is 0% beef ingredients, which is factually correct. I don't think that they were intending to be misleading, and they never attempted to even say the word vegan or vegetarian. Even the article starts off with the premise that the intended market are vegans and vegetarians, which is presumptuous.. there's a whole class of people that just want to cut down on their meat consumption (myself included). This whole thing just seems like more of the holier-than-thou / all-or-nothing approach taken by many of the vegan crowd that end up doing more harm than good for their cause. This seems like a misunderstanding in advertising that's easily resolved, not a "shut it all down" sort of thing.

larnmar 7y ago

0% beef sounds accurate. If they were claiming 0.00000000000000000% beef, there might be an issue.