13 ms·

Italy's minister of agriculture explains the decision: "With the law approved today, Italy is the first nation in the world to be safe from the social and econo

by cs702 3y ago

Italy's minister of agriculture explains the decision: "With the law approved today, Italy is the first nation in the world to be safe from the social and economic risks of synthetic food." The OP adds that the new law "also prohibits the use of meat-related terms, like 'salami' or 'steak', for plant-based meat substitutes." The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to lab-based meats. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. I hope Italy eventually comes to its senses and repeals it. Sigh.

sebstefan 3y ago
They have a reactionary far right government since September 2022. They've got more where that came from
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- YakBizzarro 3y ago
  Yes, but Italy is a parliamentary republic, the president has only a ceremonial/ guarantee role. Governments/parliaments last much less, maximum 5 years, but often way less
  - sebstefan 3y ago
    Merf I just found that out and edited it right before you posted.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  As an Italian, I despise them as any other reasonable person. But this decision is not unreasonable. Let the World eat it so we can gather data. We are Italians, we've never been early adopters of anything coming from outside our borders. Especially food wise and except mobile phones. It is also not unreasonable to label things for what they really are. Almond juice is not milk as in "the white liquid food produced by the mammary glands of mammals" and plant based meat substitutes are not a steak or a burger, they are vegetable patties.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    The use of "milk" for other things far predates almond milk. cf: milk of magnesium, milk of ambrosia, various plant saps called "milk", etc.
    - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
      > milk of ambrosia in the original story of Amrita there was a sea of real milk involved. > plant saps called "milk" like coconut milk or oat milk of course. That doesn't mean it's not juice and that the name stayed for historical reasons. And because they actually look like milk. Almond juice doesn't look like milk, unless processed. That's why I mentioned almond milk in the first place.
    - underseacables 3y ago
      milk of is key. Not Coconut Milk. Call it milk of Coconut. Either way it's not milk, just a thickened beverage desperately trying to mimic milk.
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        It's been called Coconut Milk since at least 1698. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coconut%20milk https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coconut%20milk
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        "Almond milk" is referenced in the 1390 book "The Forme of Cury"
  - philipov 3y ago
    I thought Italy was responsible for introducing the rest of Europe to all sorts of goods coming across the silk road for the first time. Italy was the most important center of trade in Europe for a long time.
    - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
- brvsft 3y ago
  I'll take the bait. It's not so surprising to see "reactionary" politics when social 'progress' continues to become more and more demented. But I'll admit, fake meat is not even present on my list of problems.
  - number6 3y ago
    Protect the local meat industry? Salami, Soppresata, Prosciutto, Pepperoni; damn left with their synthetic meat trying to poison us and destroy us economically
    - brvsft 3y ago
      Hey, do me a favor and read the last sentence of my comment. There are only three sentences so it shouldn't be hard to find.
      - number6 3y ago
        Sorry, I don't seem to understand you comment. I read it a few times but. I don't get it. Sorry to have bothered you...
- nec4b 3y ago
  What would then call the Mussolini government if this one is far right? Was the previous government far left?
throwaway17295 3y ago
>many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food Can you elaborate on that?
- codetrotter 3y ago
  “Meat production accounts for 57 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire food production industry. It also results in widespread deforestation and loss of biodiversity, and each of these means that it significantly contributes to climate change.” https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/ https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-env...
  - m_a_g 3y ago
    Those are heavily disputed claims.
    - Sharlin 3y ago
      How can they be disputed? It's a fact clear as a day that deforestation in many places is caused by people making room for farmland… that don't produce food for people but fodder for livestock. And livestock has a calorie conversion efficiency much lower than unity. So you need to cut more forest to feed the same number of people. It can also scarcely be disputed that cattle produce large amounts of methane, enough that it's a significant factor in total greenhouse emissions. There's also no disputing the fact that turning uncultivated land into monocultural farmland is a great cause of biodiversity loss – it's essentially the definition of farmland!
      - DrThunder 3y ago
        [dead]
    - Hikikomori 3y ago
      Which ones?
    - 3y ago
game_the0ry 3y ago
> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. Not sure how truthfully labelling products would mean all that. I think the consumer is smart enough to make choices for themselves, and the language of food labels only benefits, not harms, that.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Well, they appear to actually be banning the products. I personally have zero problem if they don't want the products to be labeled similarly to the "real" versions. There are already a ton of regulations in Europe about how food products are labeled.
wredue 3y ago
Weird how laws that base their validity on “culture” tend to be absolutely shitty laws.
- AlexAltea 3y ago
  The Italians have largely voted for a party that vowed to protect their culture. Perhaps the resulting laws are shitty for you, but likely not for the majority of Italians.
  - wredue 3y ago
    It’s funny, cause if you asked all the people who approve of this, they’d scream “free market capitalism! End regulation!” Meanwhile, they support a move that is incredibly anti-free market and stomps on the right to do business in the name of virtue signalling bullshit. What is “a law formed on ‘culture’” if not entirely virtue signalling? I thought you guys said that virtue signalling was bad?
    - AlexAltea 3y ago
      This is a problem with many dimensions and few equilibrium points. Libertarianism and nationalism are certainly incompatible, but that doesn't mean everybody needs to make their mind an pick one. They can accept both as valid equilibria, and rally for a gradient-descent into the closest one according to local politics. Right now we find ourselves far from any equilibrium points: just an awkward heavily polarized in-between. I hope we can find the next equilibrium without a global civil war. PS: Not sure if "you guys" goes for me, I'm merely an observer. I'm not even Italian.
    - seec 3y ago
      In order to signal virtue, the thing in question has to be considered virtuous, by the mainstream media intelligencia and generally the opponents as well. You cannot appear virtuous if what you stand for is contrary to the mainstream opinion of how moral behavior is supposed to look like. By deciding to give preference to history and the thing that is currently considered immoral (eating meat) they actually do the reverse of virtue signaling. And yes, that is a pro free market move, because the only thing they say is: you can call your alternative product whatever you want and you may sell it as well, but do not try to confuse customers with historical naming that do not represent what your product is. Vegans/vegetarians are in general for an outright ban of those products, so basically authoritarian fascist behavior; but as always, it's the most tolerant called on his behavior and somehow it is found problematic that it is forbidden to lie on products packaging...
zozbot234 3y ago
Of course, we should all be drinking Soylent and eating pill-based food. Who cares about preserving a tradition of high-level cuisine that exists from time immemorial, when we can live like they did in bad science-fiction books from the 1960s or 1970s instead.
- DoctorDabadedoo 3y ago
  You're a not forced to eat or do anything. That's the same argument religious people have against abortions, even though no one is forcing you to have one.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    > That's the same argument religious people have against abortions No, That's the same argument religious people have about dietary restrictions. In Italy food is a religion. If Jews can have Kashrut and Muslims can only eat halal food (basically everything, except pork and its by-products), we can say no to lab grown food. Why not? Is it really progress to blindly accept everything, even if it could mean to completely hijack your own cultural traditions, that are such an important part of everyone's daily life? No Jew ever died by eating non-kosher food. It's just a cultural tradition. Nonetheless we respect them, at least I do.
    - donkeyd 3y ago
      > If Jews can have Kashrut and Muslims can only eat halal food (basically everything, except pork and its by-products), we can say no to lab grown food. As an agnostic person who believes church and state should be very separate, you make the perfect argument for why I think this law is stupid. If you don't want to drink alcohol, smoke, eat pork or lab grown meat, go ahead. But don't force others into your religious ways of doing through restrictive laws. Just don't buy that stuff at the grocery store.
      - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
        > I think this law is stupid. of course it is! As an Italian from Rome, I am not only an atheist, but I'm deeply fond of the Roman Republic constitution that predates the Italian Constitution against the pope and the Vatican ruling over the people of Rome. nevertheless food is like a religion for Italians And religious and non religious people treat it like that. we constantly talk about it, to the point that sometimes even I am sick of it. I believe Japan is similar in that way.
ramesh31 3y ago
>The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. Whatever they are doing with food laws in Italy, I am 100% ok with it. There's a reason why anything imported is strictly superior to the US made version. They are dead serious when it comes to quality and purity, and I appreciate that greatly.
donkeyd 3y ago
> very shortsighted While the western world is getting angry about change, China is out eating our lunch by moving into all these emerging technologies. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a conscious effort to push conservative extremism in western countries for this exact reason. If I just look around in my country, new electric cars are quickly becoming mostly Chinese and most solar panels are Chinese. Meanwhile, a very large group just voted for a party that wants to stop pretty much every investment in renewables, while also pushing out migrants in an already very tight and quickly aging labor market. In the long term, our own bigotry and climate denialism is going to severely bite us in the ass. Especially since we're already barely above sea level.
- jwestbury 3y ago
  > Meanwhile, a very large group just voted for a party that wants to stop pretty much every investment in renewables, while also pushing out migrants in an already very tight and quickly aging labor market. So, Netherlands, then? > barely above sea level Sounds like it. From an American (sigh) living in the UK (sigh), you have my deepest sympathies.
  - donkeyd 3y ago
    Much appreciated! And right back at ya!
eschulz 3y ago
According to this article, this law bans "cultivated meat" which is cultured from animal-derived cells, and it bans labelling of plant-based products with names that use common meat products like "steak" or "salami". The law does not ban plant-based meat-like alternatives. Italy will probably continue to increase its consumption of these products, and they'll just have to use names that aren't traditionally used in the meat industry in Italy.
- em-bee 3y ago
  they'll just have to use names that aren't traditionally used in the meat industry and that's how it should be. because the alternative is confusing. as someone who also enjoys vegetarian food i really want to be clear if something is actually including meat or not without having to study the fine print.
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  I really wish we'd resist the trend to trying to create imitations of meat dishes hear and calling them "vegan" X. Vegetables, and even vegan meals, can be amazing on their own. They often become awful and disgusting when made to play dress-up as meat. I mean, look at cuisine in India. The veg dishes, even the dairy-free dishes, are amazing without ever trying to turn them into meat-impostors. I say all of this as someone who loves a good steak. If you're going to serve me a veg dish, just serve me a veg dish. I can handle it.
  - omnimus 3y ago
    These “meat-impostors” are popular with vegans who liked taste of meat and miss it. Turns out there are quite few of these. It might be stupid from point of view of non-vegans. The products might even be unlheathly but it doesnt matter. Hard to put this against them.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
  Interesting, I would argue that's very positive. I found ridiculous the "chocolatey" vs "chocolate" that some stuff has in Canada
hbossy 3y ago
The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. I'm glad I missed all the benefits of introduction of margarine because they couldn't use the word "butter" on packaging.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  It does seem like an oddly nonsensical line of argument.
  - seec 3y ago
    But it is exactly the same thing!? Labeling margarine as butter would be misrepresenting what it is just like labeling whatever meat replacement they have as salami would be wrong. Funniest thing is that since I strongly dislike salami, you would never see me buying the "fake" if it is supposed to be anything like the real thing. But I'm might be tempted by an alternative product that they may call whatever they want. The thing with the meat replacement stuff is that they want to cheat on naming to get people to "try" by mistake. But in reality, what prevents their adoption is that they are not very good (when it's not just outright nasty) on top of being extremely expensive. I really don't understand how they want people to switch to those stuff when they are not competitively priced when you adjust for nutrition per $ without even talking about taste. Either greed is unreal in this sector or the production of those things is actually a less efficient process than eating animals and the ecological argument is moot.
23B1 3y ago
Hilarious to me how proponents of synthetic/plant-based food always seem to gloss over the cultural aspects of food. It's such a spreadsheet-brain way of looking at the world.
AlexAltea 3y ago
> social, economic, and environmental benefits Can you elaborate or is the first word just extra weight? Please no offense, it's an honest question: I find very interesting how most people, when they want to get a debatable point across, almost always throw exactly 3 profound and all-encompassing adjectives (rarely 2, 4 or 5). Even ChatGPT has noticed the pattern and picks up this style. But if you break the sentences down, very often realize that 1 or even 2 of such adjectives are fillers.
PurpleRamen 3y ago
How do they miss out on the benefits? This reads as if you still can sell plant-based food, just not name it with typical meat-names. And considering how strong the food-culture (& and industry) in Italy is today, this is kinda understandable. For the loud voices, this is part of their identity at the moment. Also, isn't Italian food already very focused on plants? So the benefit are probably far less than in the more unhealthy country anyway.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sebstefan 3y ago
  They outlawed animal-derived cell based meat.
  - PurpleRamen 3y ago
    Yes, and they also outlawed using "meat-names" for meat-replacements. I just don't see how this will have a 100% lose on the benefits of plant-based food. Maybe it does influence the market, maybe not. But the plant-based food is till there. The loose will not be 100% What they they lose out 100% at the moment is on artificial animal-meat. But I also don't see where those have actual benefits at the moment. Availability on market is zero to none at the moment, and how much impact this will really have on climate and environment is still unknown at this point.
    - sebstefan 3y ago
      >But I also don't see where those have actual benefits at the moment ??? Fucking... killing cattle, maybe?
jonhohle 3y ago
Or they don’t want to be a Guinea pig for something that (currently) has higher environmental impact than conventional meat[0]. I’ve less concern for the naming bans, however as someone allergic to soy, like when it’s stated up front. I’m not sure how forcing packaging of plant based goods to not use meaty words affects anyone negatively. 0 - https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/lab-grown-meat-carbon-footprint-worse-beef https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/lab-grown-meat-carbon-foot...
raincole 3y ago
If plant-based foods are so good then sell them as so. Don't sell them as $adjective meat. If your whole business idea is based on misleading customers, perhaps it's not that good.
- lacrimacida 3y ago
  This industry is new and seemingly needs a little deception at first to get people to adopt their products faster. Time will solve this one, people will find an identifier that they like and in this case it won’t be Italian since they won’t be enjoying these for now.
- thiht 3y ago
  I’m French so I’m extremely in favor of naming things correctly. For example I’m cringing hard when I see Americans not understanding what the big deal is with « Champagne » vs « sparkling wine ». However I think it makes sense to name new things based on what they look or feel like, as long as an adjective is there to clear any ambiguity. For example no one has an issue with coconut milk, although it’s not milk? In my opinion if an almond milk is labeled as just « milk », yeah that’s a problem, it’s deceptive. If it’s labeled as « almond milk », seems pretty clear to me? Same for « vegetal steak » or « chickpea sausage » or whatever. Or even « turkey bacon » to stay in the meat products. Some of these rulings are just out of spite, and not to protect consumers, and it’s not really a good thing.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Yes I do enjoy an occasional glass of Korbel California Champagne. https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/loophole-california-champagne-legal/ https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/loophole-california-champagne...
    - thiht 3y ago
      See, this is deceptive because Champagne is more like a brand, not a type of product. The type of product is « sparkling wine », « méthode champenoise » or « méthode traditionnelle ». Using Champagne in the name is lying. « Steak » is not a brand, neither is « milk » or « sausage ». Another example would be « California Kobe steak », it doesn’t exist. « California wagyu » sure, go for it, but not Kobe.
bborud 3y ago
I think there are two things to consider here. One is a question: is Italy a player in this field and do they have research companies that have a vested interest in this? I don't know the answer to that question, but if they don't have much to lose in the short term it probably doesn't represent much of a lost opportunity. Besides, it's Italy. It is about as politically stable as a jenga tower where all the easy pieces have already been removed. I'm not sure how robust such a ban might be if economic interests were to change. The other is an observation: Italy has a lot of high value PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) products. Compare countries like Italy and France, which have many PDO products, to, for instance, the US, which has extremely few. Of course, I haven't made a systematic study to map out how many PDO products countries have and cross-referenced that to how skeptical they are towards cultivated meat products, but it would surprise me if there was no correlation. This represents a guess on my part.
- Arnt 3y ago
  IMO Italy has lots of high value origin stuff because they value and care about tradition and realness and so on. Go to Italy and you'll see real stonework. If you want to find a micrometer layer of gold on top of plastic, or not much more marble on top of concrete, then go do Saudi or UAE. Not Italy. The stone you find there is real, and so's the porchetta. So they get PDO designation for the stuff they care about, and abhor makebelieve alternatives for the same reason that they value the real porchetta.
  - bborud 3y ago
    I used to think the outrage Italians show when you mess with Italian dishes on Youtube was exaggerated. Then I worked with a couple of Italians from the north of Italy. Oh boy do they take food in general, and their national cuisine in particular, seriously :-)
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
      The food I get in Italy is on average substantially better than the one I get in Vancouver, so that protection of food has some serious value. when I arrived in Canada, I asked what is a canadian dish and I've been told poutine, nothing else. I was shocked, in Italy I can't count all traditional dishes, let alone know all of them (I'm of Italian origin). That being said, banning food is not a good idea, but I can see also a rationale for banning it. We'll see how it goes
briantakita 3y ago
> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. I hope Italy eventually comes to its senses and repeals it. They seem to be avoiding the "unintended consequences" of consuming synthetic food. Perhaps they are thinking on the timeline of lifetimes & generations?
thefz 3y ago
> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. Feel free to go ahead and test lab grown meat on yourself and report back in 30 years. Plastic was once considered safe, right? Smoking too?
Nazzareno 3y ago
It's not shortsighted. It's just a decision driven by some Italian lobbies (meat industry), scared about this innovation where they feel threatened. For the same reason they managed to forbid the use of some Italian meat-words applied to plant-based meat.
swatcoder 3y ago
> strikes me as very shortsighted The world doesn't have to be homogenous and probably shouldn't be. Nations have "brands" that mean something to their people and that have outsized economic value in trade. Further, heterogenous approaches to new technology is a powerful way for the human species to hedge its bets against unknowable long-term risks. Italy can spend the next N decades branding themselves as the place to look for quality traditional meats that convey millennia of culinary heritage and husbandry practice and almost certainly come out far ahead economically vs rushing to void that implicit value in favor of factory-grown synthetic meats shipped in from some distant country. And then, if the tides have turned after those N decades, they can consider hopping on the bandwagon then. For a small nation with a strong and valuable brand for culinary goods, there's very very little to lose in this strategy. Excepting those peers that have a mature industrial stake in synthetic meats, you can expect to see similar discussions in France and elsewhere.
- EnergyAmy 3y ago
  Why does that require a law? Why can't Italian companies that want to brand themselves as everything you're saying? Then if the tides have turned, Italian companies aren't prevented from swimming with them.

by cs702 3y ago

sebstefan 3y ago

They have a reactionary far right government since September 2022. They've got more where that came from

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
YakBizzarro 3y ago
Yes, but Italy is a parliamentary republic, the president has only a ceremonial/ guarantee role. Governments/parliaments last much less, maximum 5 years, but often way less
- sebstefan 3y ago
  Merf I just found that out and edited it right before you posted.
peoplefromibiza 3y ago
As an Italian, I despise them as any other reasonable person. But this decision is not unreasonable. Let the World eat it so we can gather data. We are Italians, we've never been early adopters of anything coming from outside our borders. Especially food wise and except mobile phones. It is also not unreasonable to label things for what they really are. Almond juice is not milk as in "the white liquid food produced by the mammary glands of mammals" and plant based meat substitutes are not a steak or a burger, they are vegetable patties.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  The use of "milk" for other things far predates almond milk. cf: milk of magnesium, milk of ambrosia, various plant saps called "milk", etc.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    > milk of ambrosia in the original story of Amrita there was a sea of real milk involved. > plant saps called "milk" like coconut milk or oat milk of course. That doesn't mean it's not juice and that the name stayed for historical reasons. And because they actually look like milk. Almond juice doesn't look like milk, unless processed. That's why I mentioned almond milk in the first place.
  - underseacables 3y ago
    milk of is key. Not Coconut Milk. Call it milk of Coconut. Either way it's not milk, just a thickened beverage desperately trying to mimic milk.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      It's been called Coconut Milk since at least 1698. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coconut%20milk https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coconut%20milk
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      "Almond milk" is referenced in the 1390 book "The Forme of Cury"
- philipov 3y ago
  I thought Italy was responsible for introducing the rest of Europe to all sorts of goods coming across the silk road for the first time. Italy was the most important center of trade in Europe for a long time.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
brvsft 3y ago
I'll take the bait. It's not so surprising to see "reactionary" politics when social 'progress' continues to become more and more demented. But I'll admit, fake meat is not even present on my list of problems.
- number6 3y ago
  Protect the local meat industry? Salami, Soppresata, Prosciutto, Pepperoni; damn left with their synthetic meat trying to poison us and destroy us economically
  - brvsft 3y ago
    Hey, do me a favor and read the last sentence of my comment. There are only three sentences so it shouldn't be hard to find.
    - number6 3y ago
      Sorry, I don't seem to understand you comment. I read it a few times but. I don't get it. Sorry to have bothered you...
nec4b 3y ago
What would then call the Mussolini government if this one is far right? Was the previous government far left?

throwaway17295 3y ago

>many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food Can you elaborate on that?

codetrotter 3y ago
“Meat production accounts for 57 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire food production industry. It also results in widespread deforestation and loss of biodiversity, and each of these means that it significantly contributes to climate change.” https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/ https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-env...
- m_a_g 3y ago
  Those are heavily disputed claims.
  - Sharlin 3y ago
    How can they be disputed? It's a fact clear as a day that deforestation in many places is caused by people making room for farmland… that don't produce food for people but fodder for livestock. And livestock has a calorie conversion efficiency much lower than unity. So you need to cut more forest to feed the same number of people. It can also scarcely be disputed that cattle produce large amounts of methane, enough that it's a significant factor in total greenhouse emissions. There's also no disputing the fact that turning uncultivated land into monocultural farmland is a great cause of biodiversity loss – it's essentially the definition of farmland!
    - DrThunder 3y ago
      [dead]
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    Which ones?
  - 3y ago

game_the0ry 3y ago

> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. Not sure how truthfully labelling products would mean all that. I think the consumer is smart enough to make choices for themselves, and the language of food labels only benefits, not harms, that.

ghaff 3y ago
Well, they appear to actually be banning the products. I personally have zero problem if they don't want the products to be labeled similarly to the "real" versions. There are already a ton of regulations in Europe about how food products are labeled.

wredue 3y ago

Weird how laws that base their validity on “culture” tend to be absolutely shitty laws.

AlexAltea 3y ago
The Italians have largely voted for a party that vowed to protect their culture. Perhaps the resulting laws are shitty for you, but likely not for the majority of Italians.
- wredue 3y ago
  It’s funny, cause if you asked all the people who approve of this, they’d scream “free market capitalism! End regulation!” Meanwhile, they support a move that is incredibly anti-free market and stomps on the right to do business in the name of virtue signalling bullshit. What is “a law formed on ‘culture’” if not entirely virtue signalling? I thought you guys said that virtue signalling was bad?
  - AlexAltea 3y ago
    This is a problem with many dimensions and few equilibrium points. Libertarianism and nationalism are certainly incompatible, but that doesn't mean everybody needs to make their mind an pick one. They can accept both as valid equilibria, and rally for a gradient-descent into the closest one according to local politics. Right now we find ourselves far from any equilibrium points: just an awkward heavily polarized in-between. I hope we can find the next equilibrium without a global civil war. PS: Not sure if "you guys" goes for me, I'm merely an observer. I'm not even Italian.
  - seec 3y ago
    In order to signal virtue, the thing in question has to be considered virtuous, by the mainstream media intelligencia and generally the opponents as well. You cannot appear virtuous if what you stand for is contrary to the mainstream opinion of how moral behavior is supposed to look like. By deciding to give preference to history and the thing that is currently considered immoral (eating meat) they actually do the reverse of virtue signaling. And yes, that is a pro free market move, because the only thing they say is: you can call your alternative product whatever you want and you may sell it as well, but do not try to confuse customers with historical naming that do not represent what your product is. Vegans/vegetarians are in general for an outright ban of those products, so basically authoritarian fascist behavior; but as always, it's the most tolerant called on his behavior and somehow it is found problematic that it is forbidden to lie on products packaging...

zozbot234 3y ago

Of course, we should all be drinking Soylent and eating pill-based food. Who cares about preserving a tradition of high-level cuisine that exists from time immemorial, when we can live like they did in bad science-fiction books from the 1960s or 1970s instead.

DoctorDabadedoo 3y ago
You're a not forced to eat or do anything. That's the same argument religious people have against abortions, even though no one is forcing you to have one.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > That's the same argument religious people have against abortions No, That's the same argument religious people have about dietary restrictions. In Italy food is a religion. If Jews can have Kashrut and Muslims can only eat halal food (basically everything, except pork and its by-products), we can say no to lab grown food. Why not? Is it really progress to blindly accept everything, even if it could mean to completely hijack your own cultural traditions, that are such an important part of everyone's daily life? No Jew ever died by eating non-kosher food. It's just a cultural tradition. Nonetheless we respect them, at least I do.
  - donkeyd 3y ago
    > If Jews can have Kashrut and Muslims can only eat halal food (basically everything, except pork and its by-products), we can say no to lab grown food. As an agnostic person who believes church and state should be very separate, you make the perfect argument for why I think this law is stupid. If you don't want to drink alcohol, smoke, eat pork or lab grown meat, go ahead. But don't force others into your religious ways of doing through restrictive laws. Just don't buy that stuff at the grocery store.
    - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
      > I think this law is stupid. of course it is! As an Italian from Rome, I am not only an atheist, but I'm deeply fond of the Roman Republic constitution that predates the Italian Constitution against the pope and the Vatican ruling over the people of Rome. nevertheless food is like a religion for Italians And religious and non religious people treat it like that. we constantly talk about it, to the point that sometimes even I am sick of it. I believe Japan is similar in that way.

ramesh31 3y ago

>The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. Whatever they are doing with food laws in Italy, I am 100% ok with it. There's a reason why anything imported is strictly superior to the US made version. They are dead serious when it comes to quality and purity, and I appreciate that greatly.

donkeyd 3y ago

> very shortsighted While the western world is getting angry about change, China is out eating our lunch by moving into all these emerging technologies. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a conscious effort to push conservative extremism in western countries for this exact reason. If I just look around in my country, new electric cars are quickly becoming mostly Chinese and most solar panels are Chinese. Meanwhile, a very large group just voted for a party that wants to stop pretty much every investment in renewables, while also pushing out migrants in an already very tight and quickly aging labor market. In the long term, our own bigotry and climate denialism is going to severely bite us in the ass. Especially since we're already barely above sea level.

jwestbury 3y ago
> Meanwhile, a very large group just voted for a party that wants to stop pretty much every investment in renewables, while also pushing out migrants in an already very tight and quickly aging labor market. So, Netherlands, then? > barely above sea level Sounds like it. From an American (sigh) living in the UK (sigh), you have my deepest sympathies.
- donkeyd 3y ago
  Much appreciated! And right back at ya!

eschulz 3y ago

According to this article, this law bans "cultivated meat" which is cultured from animal-derived cells, and it bans labelling of plant-based products with names that use common meat products like "steak" or "salami". The law does not ban plant-based meat-like alternatives. Italy will probably continue to increase its consumption of these products, and they'll just have to use names that aren't traditionally used in the meat industry in Italy.

em-bee 3y ago
they'll just have to use names that aren't traditionally used in the meat industry and that's how it should be. because the alternative is confusing. as someone who also enjoys vegetarian food i really want to be clear if something is actually including meat or not without having to study the fine print.
slowmovintarget 3y ago
I really wish we'd resist the trend to trying to create imitations of meat dishes hear and calling them "vegan" X. Vegetables, and even vegan meals, can be amazing on their own. They often become awful and disgusting when made to play dress-up as meat. I mean, look at cuisine in India. The veg dishes, even the dairy-free dishes, are amazing without ever trying to turn them into meat-impostors. I say all of this as someone who loves a good steak. If you're going to serve me a veg dish, just serve me a veg dish. I can handle it.
- omnimus 3y ago
  These “meat-impostors” are popular with vegans who liked taste of meat and miss it. Turns out there are quite few of these. It might be stupid from point of view of non-vegans. The products might even be unlheathly but it doesnt matter. Hard to put this against them.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
Interesting, I would argue that's very positive. I found ridiculous the "chocolatey" vs "chocolate" that some stuff has in Canada

hbossy 3y ago

The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. I'm glad I missed all the benefits of introduction of margarine because they couldn't use the word "butter" on packaging.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
It does seem like an oddly nonsensical line of argument.
- seec 3y ago
  But it is exactly the same thing!? Labeling margarine as butter would be misrepresenting what it is just like labeling whatever meat replacement they have as salami would be wrong. Funniest thing is that since I strongly dislike salami, you would never see me buying the "fake" if it is supposed to be anything like the real thing. But I'm might be tempted by an alternative product that they may call whatever they want. The thing with the meat replacement stuff is that they want to cheat on naming to get people to "try" by mistake. But in reality, what prevents their adoption is that they are not very good (when it's not just outright nasty) on top of being extremely expensive. I really don't understand how they want people to switch to those stuff when they are not competitively priced when you adjust for nutrition per $ without even talking about taste. Either greed is unreal in this sector or the production of those things is actually a less efficient process than eating animals and the ecological argument is moot.

23B1 3y ago

Hilarious to me how proponents of synthetic/plant-based food always seem to gloss over the cultural aspects of food. It's such a spreadsheet-brain way of looking at the world.

AlexAltea 3y ago

> social, economic, and environmental benefits Can you elaborate or is the first word just extra weight? Please no offense, it's an honest question: I find very interesting how most people, when they want to get a debatable point across, almost always throw exactly 3 profound and all-encompassing adjectives (rarely 2, 4 or 5). Even ChatGPT has noticed the pattern and picks up this style. But if you break the sentences down, very often realize that 1 or even 2 of such adjectives are fillers.

PurpleRamen 3y ago

How do they miss out on the benefits? This reads as if you still can sell plant-based food, just not name it with typical meat-names. And considering how strong the food-culture (& and industry) in Italy is today, this is kinda understandable. For the loud voices, this is part of their identity at the moment. Also, isn't Italian food already very focused on plants? So the benefit are probably far less than in the more unhealthy country anyway.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sebstefan 3y ago
They outlawed animal-derived cell based meat.
- PurpleRamen 3y ago
  Yes, and they also outlawed using "meat-names" for meat-replacements. I just don't see how this will have a 100% lose on the benefits of plant-based food. Maybe it does influence the market, maybe not. But the plant-based food is till there. The loose will not be 100% What they they lose out 100% at the moment is on artificial animal-meat. But I also don't see where those have actual benefits at the moment. Availability on market is zero to none at the moment, and how much impact this will really have on climate and environment is still unknown at this point.
  - sebstefan 3y ago
    >But I also don't see where those have actual benefits at the moment ??? Fucking... killing cattle, maybe?

jonhohle 3y ago

Or they don’t want to be a Guinea pig for something that (currently) has higher environmental impact than conventional meat[0]. I’ve less concern for the naming bans, however as someone allergic to soy, like when it’s stated up front. I’m not sure how forcing packaging of plant based goods to not use meaty words affects anyone negatively. 0 - https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/lab-grown-meat-carbon-footprint-worse-beef https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/lab-grown-meat-carbon-foot...

raincole 3y ago

If plant-based foods are so good then sell them as so. Don't sell them as $adjective meat. If your whole business idea is based on misleading customers, perhaps it's not that good.

lacrimacida 3y ago
This industry is new and seemingly needs a little deception at first to get people to adopt their products faster. Time will solve this one, people will find an identifier that they like and in this case it won’t be Italian since they won’t be enjoying these for now.
thiht 3y ago
I’m French so I’m extremely in favor of naming things correctly. For example I’m cringing hard when I see Americans not understanding what the big deal is with « Champagne » vs « sparkling wine ». However I think it makes sense to name new things based on what they look or feel like, as long as an adjective is there to clear any ambiguity. For example no one has an issue with coconut milk, although it’s not milk? In my opinion if an almond milk is labeled as just « milk », yeah that’s a problem, it’s deceptive. If it’s labeled as « almond milk », seems pretty clear to me? Same for « vegetal steak » or « chickpea sausage » or whatever. Or even « turkey bacon » to stay in the meat products. Some of these rulings are just out of spite, and not to protect consumers, and it’s not really a good thing.
- nradov 3y ago
  Yes I do enjoy an occasional glass of Korbel California Champagne. https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/loophole-california-champagne-legal/ https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/loophole-california-champagne...
  - thiht 3y ago
    See, this is deceptive because Champagne is more like a brand, not a type of product. The type of product is « sparkling wine », « méthode champenoise » or « méthode traditionnelle ». Using Champagne in the name is lying. « Steak » is not a brand, neither is « milk » or « sausage ». Another example would be « California Kobe steak », it doesn’t exist. « California wagyu » sure, go for it, but not Kobe.

bborud 3y ago

I think there are two things to consider here. One is a question: is Italy a player in this field and do they have research companies that have a vested interest in this? I don't know the answer to that question, but if they don't have much to lose in the short term it probably doesn't represent much of a lost opportunity. Besides, it's Italy. It is about as politically stable as a jenga tower where all the easy pieces have already been removed. I'm not sure how robust such a ban might be if economic interests were to change. The other is an observation: Italy has a lot of high value PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) products. Compare countries like Italy and France, which have many PDO products, to, for instance, the US, which has extremely few. Of course, I haven't made a systematic study to map out how many PDO products countries have and cross-referenced that to how skeptical they are towards cultivated meat products, but it would surprise me if there was no correlation. This represents a guess on my part.

Arnt 3y ago
IMO Italy has lots of high value origin stuff because they value and care about tradition and realness and so on. Go to Italy and you'll see real stonework. If you want to find a micrometer layer of gold on top of plastic, or not much more marble on top of concrete, then go do Saudi or UAE. Not Italy. The stone you find there is real, and so's the porchetta. So they get PDO designation for the stuff they care about, and abhor makebelieve alternatives for the same reason that they value the real porchetta.
- bborud 3y ago
  I used to think the outrage Italians show when you mess with Italian dishes on Youtube was exaggerated. Then I worked with a couple of Italians from the north of Italy. Oh boy do they take food in general, and their national cuisine in particular, seriously :-)
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    The food I get in Italy is on average substantially better than the one I get in Vancouver, so that protection of food has some serious value. when I arrived in Canada, I asked what is a canadian dish and I've been told poutine, nothing else. I was shocked, in Italy I can't count all traditional dishes, let alone know all of them (I'm of Italian origin). That being said, banning food is not a good idea, but I can see also a rationale for banning it. We'll see how it goes

briantakita 3y ago

> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. The new law strikes me as very shortsighted. I hope Italy eventually comes to its senses and repeals it. They seem to be avoiding the "unintended consequences" of consuming synthetic food. Perhaps they are thinking on the timeline of lifetimes & generations?

thefz 3y ago

> The unintended consequence of the new law is to ensure that Italy 100% misses out on the many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food. Feel free to go ahead and test lab grown meat on yourself and report back in 30 years. Plastic was once considered safe, right? Smoking too?

Nazzareno 3y ago

It's not shortsighted. It's just a decision driven by some Italian lobbies (meat industry), scared about this innovation where they feel threatened. For the same reason they managed to forbid the use of some Italian meat-words applied to plant-based meat.

swatcoder 3y ago

> strikes me as very shortsighted The world doesn't have to be homogenous and probably shouldn't be. Nations have "brands" that mean something to their people and that have outsized economic value in trade. Further, heterogenous approaches to new technology is a powerful way for the human species to hedge its bets against unknowable long-term risks. Italy can spend the next N decades branding themselves as the place to look for quality traditional meats that convey millennia of culinary heritage and husbandry practice and almost certainly come out far ahead economically vs rushing to void that implicit value in favor of factory-grown synthetic meats shipped in from some distant country. And then, if the tides have turned after those N decades, they can consider hopping on the bandwagon then. For a small nation with a strong and valuable brand for culinary goods, there's very very little to lose in this strategy. Excepting those peers that have a mature industrial stake in synthetic meats, you can expect to see similar discussions in France and elsewhere.

EnergyAmy 3y ago
Why does that require a law? Why can't Italian companies that want to brand themselves as everything you're saying? Then if the tides have turned, Italian companies aren't prevented from swimming with them.