Last week the European Parliament voted down a proposal to ban the use of words like burger, sausage and steak for products that do not contain meat. The EP did not think that these terms would be confusing if applied to plant-based products. As long as products are clearly labelled as plant-based, vegan, or meat-free, then there is no reason that consumers would accidentally buy them when they were planning to buy meat. At the same time, the EP did come down on plant-based dairy products, banning terms like cheese-like or yoghurt-style. Interestingly, The Guardian did not see this as an inconsistency since cheese and milk are specific products, but what is a product and what is a label is not so easily fixed.
Language is use
Let's begin by pointing out that the European Parliament made the right choice on meat-substitutes. I'm not just saying this as a vegan of 4.5 years: there is every reason that faux meats should be allowed to have similar names as actual meats. The words we use like sausage or steak are associated with meat, of course, but these are just conventions that arose through use. However, not all labels are equal. We can distinguish between labels that are associated with the nature of the product, such as steak, which involves the muscles of an animal, and labels that are primarily about form and use, such as burger, which tells you nothing about the type of meat, but just that it generally comes in a disc like patty that you put on a bun. In fact, a burger could just as well be made of fish.
Based on that observation, we should immediately reject the idea that terms like burger or sausage should not be allowed to be applied to plant-based products. The only reason we associate them with meat, is that in the past they have always been made primarily or exclusively from meat. But that's a historical artifact. Their main identifiers, the way we classify something as a burger or sausage, is their shape and how we eat them.
The argument becomes a bit more complicated when we start talking about words we associate with specific parts of an animal, such as steak. Indeed, this is likely the same reason why terms like almond milk are banned: these categorise a specific product. Milk is not just any white liquid, it is produced by lactating animals. Of course almond milk is a dairy replacement, but that's not the same as saying it's plant-based dairy. So what are other reasons we should ban or allow these terms?
Based on that observation, we should immediately reject the idea that terms like burger or sausage should not be allowed to be applied to plant-based products. The only reason we associate them with meat, is that in the past they have always been made primarily or exclusively from meat. But that's a historical artifact. Their main identifiers, the way we classify something as a burger or sausage, is their shape and how we eat them.
The argument becomes a bit more complicated when we start talking about words we associate with specific parts of an animal, such as steak. Indeed, this is likely the same reason why terms like almond milk are banned: these categorise a specific product. Milk is not just any white liquid, it is produced by lactating animals. Of course almond milk is a dairy replacement, but that's not the same as saying it's plant-based dairy. So what are other reasons we should ban or allow these terms?
Faux meats
Faux meats are not just made to be eaten in the same was as meat: they also have to look, taste, and smell like meat. Companies like Impossible Foods strive to making products that give the exact same sensory experience as meat, but without the animal agriculture. They are developed to offer consumers a product that they can use to replace meat, without actually losing out on anything they enjoy about meat. (Weirdly, non-vegans can get very hung up on this: they don't seem to understand, or are not willing to understand, that being against animal agriculture, does not mean you don't like the sensory experiences of meat.) In its ideal form, we have two products that are almost exactly the same, but they are made from different sources: plants or animals.
At this point, from a usability perspective, does it make sense to use the same label for both. Outside of a courtroom, words never have precise definitions that we take from dictionaries: meaning of words is shaped through how we use them. One important factor is what best helps us communicate, to make sense of the world and what other people say. If one product is the same for all practical purposes as the other, then we will generally use the same word, for no other reason than convenience. In fact, it goes so far that we can use specific brand names, to refer to generic products. We often don't talk about plastic containers, but about Tupperware. Okay, no other company can label their product as Tupperware, but that's an IP issue, not a language issue. Nobody is confused when you go to a store to buy Tupperware and you come home with a different brand.
Faux meats are meant to replace actual meats. To make it as easy as possible for people, using the same label, conveys better what the product is, than using some new word. And sure, vegan steaks are highly processed foods, but the issue is not health. You can label a bag of crisps as vegan, even if going through that bag in one sitting is not particularly healthy. For people who want to lower their meat intake, having a product labelled steak is convenient, because they immediately know what to replace their conventional meals with.
At this point, from a usability perspective, does it make sense to use the same label for both. Outside of a courtroom, words never have precise definitions that we take from dictionaries: meaning of words is shaped through how we use them. One important factor is what best helps us communicate, to make sense of the world and what other people say. If one product is the same for all practical purposes as the other, then we will generally use the same word, for no other reason than convenience. In fact, it goes so far that we can use specific brand names, to refer to generic products. We often don't talk about plastic containers, but about Tupperware. Okay, no other company can label their product as Tupperware, but that's an IP issue, not a language issue. Nobody is confused when you go to a store to buy Tupperware and you come home with a different brand.
Faux meats are meant to replace actual meats. To make it as easy as possible for people, using the same label, conveys better what the product is, than using some new word. And sure, vegan steaks are highly processed foods, but the issue is not health. You can label a bag of crisps as vegan, even if going through that bag in one sitting is not particularly healthy. For people who want to lower their meat intake, having a product labelled steak is convenient, because they immediately know what to replace their conventional meals with.
Vegan cheese and cheese-like
Now what about the plant-based dairy labels. There are at least two reasons why almond milk should not be called almond milk - although whether you enforce that by law is another matter. The first as I mentioned is that milk is produced by lactacting mammals. While that is not a meaning that is engraved in natural law, it is a meaning that we have always associated with it. For the same reason, talking about vegan meat is slightly more weird than faux meat, because meat is a more specific category, used to describe a specific substance. The second is that almond milk - and the same applies to soy, hemp, pea, coconut, etc. - is not designed to give the same sensory experience as dairy milk. Some companies try hard to give it a similar look and texture, but no company tries to make almond milk taste or smell like dairy milk. In fact, the flavour of plant-based milks is part of their unique selling point.
The ban on dairy milks thus seem justified from that perspective. I do, however, want to offer a counterpoint to all this: everybody calls it almond milk. I have literally never met anyone who asked for almond drink or something of the like. The meaning of language lies in its use, and it's very clear that almond milk is the term people use. Forcing companies to label their products differently is not going to stop that. The language of the law is just not the same as the language of human society. Legal language is a means of exercising power and control, and that is a very different ball game.
So why then do I disagree with the Guardian on terms like cheese-like and yoghurt-style? Simple: these labels clearly show that it is not actually cheese or yoghurt, but something that is made to give a similar sensory experience. Even if we agree that vegan cheese is wrong, because cheese has to made from dairy, cheese-like inherently means it's not cheese, and so there is no reason why it should not be allowed. For the same reason, IKEA can sell me artificial plants (which they have succesfully done; I cannot keep real plants alive), and I have yet to meet a lobby group that wants to ban this term. And of course, we have been using terms like peanut butter, and more generally nut butter, for so long, that the argument that these products need to contain dairy is plainly disindenguous.
The ban on dairy milks thus seem justified from that perspective. I do, however, want to offer a counterpoint to all this: everybody calls it almond milk. I have literally never met anyone who asked for almond drink or something of the like. The meaning of language lies in its use, and it's very clear that almond milk is the term people use. Forcing companies to label their products differently is not going to stop that. The language of the law is just not the same as the language of human society. Legal language is a means of exercising power and control, and that is a very different ball game.
So why then do I disagree with the Guardian on terms like cheese-like and yoghurt-style? Simple: these labels clearly show that it is not actually cheese or yoghurt, but something that is made to give a similar sensory experience. Even if we agree that vegan cheese is wrong, because cheese has to made from dairy, cheese-like inherently means it's not cheese, and so there is no reason why it should not be allowed. For the same reason, IKEA can sell me artificial plants (which they have succesfully done; I cannot keep real plants alive), and I have yet to meet a lobby group that wants to ban this term. And of course, we have been using terms like peanut butter, and more generally nut butter, for so long, that the argument that these products need to contain dairy is plainly disindenguous.
Convenience
In the end, it all comes down to the convenience of human communication. We need to categorise the world around us in a way that allows us to efficiently and effectively communicate about the world. Making up new words for products that are almost identifical to other products is the very opposite of convenient. It is why terms like almond milk are ingrained in our culture, despite them being legally banned. The law may take a different perspective, but the law cannot prescribe how people should talk. As much as the meat and dairy lobby may be trying to use the law to exercise power over our dietary habits and preferences, in the end, when you go to a supermarket and you ask where you can find the almond milk or vegan steak, the employees will have no problem showing you the way. In fact, it is only a matter of time before you actually need to make clear that you want the plant-based products, because asking for milk or steak, will just not be enough information anymore.
RSS Feed
