3 ms·
One of the basic features of language is that meanings of words change over time, including a given term retaining is original meaning but adding another one (d
by woodandsteel 7y ago
One of the basic features of language is that meanings of words change over time, including a given term retaining is original meaning but adding another one (did you think, for instance that all of the different meanings of the word "scale" were invented at the same time?). That being the case, using traditional meat terms for vegetable products that are similar to meat is perfectly legitimate.
Nobody who buys a veggie burger mistakenly thinks they are made of meat. In fact their knowledge they are not is usually a key reason they buy them
- mc32 7y agoWhat if things get flipped in 20 years and lots of synthetic meats and other foodstuffs become the norm, would it be nice if the "natural" producers coopt their names and nouns to help sell their goods? for example, let's presume seitan is synthetic, it's well known for not being an animal product. But meat producers want in in their market and market "Natural Seitan"
- mrgriffin 7y agoI'd probably find the name Natural Seitan misleading (i.e. mistakenly buy it thinking it was vegan), but calling it "Animal Seitan" would be perfectly acceptable/clear to me .
- phonypc 7y agoNot sure seitan is the best example of "synthetic." You can make it at home in less than an hour with nothing but wheat flour and water.
- woodandsteel 7y agoI would say the main question here is if consumers would be mislead into thinking "Natural Seltan" had the same advantages over meat that artificial seltan has. I don't think they would. In fact, I think they would find that label confusing, and just stay away from it. And let me add that if meat producers find sales under the traditional label have dropped so low they need to adopt that new one, then they would have already lost the war.