3 ms·

I feel like that is (should be?) more about food safety rather than IP. If you call it X but it has no nutritional similarity to X, that could be dangerous to c

I feel like that is (should be?) more about food safety rather than IP. If you call it X but it has no nutritional similarity to X, that could be dangerous to consumers. That's not to say other attempts at protecting food-related terms aren't profit protection instead. Take "champagne" for example...

isykt 3y ago
>If you call it X but it has no nutritional similarity to X, that could be dangerous to consumers. And yet nobody seems to have been harmed by the existence of these terms: (1) Sweetbread (2) Coconut Meat (3) Coconut Milk (4) Nutmeat (5) Headcheese (6) Welsh Rabbit (7) Rocky Mountain Oysters (8) Boston Cream Pie (9) Scotch Woodcock (10) Cold Duck None of which refer to the nominal food definition of the term in their name.