TWeaK

Nah it was just a day for farmers to bitch and moan and get their way a bit with the European Parliament. Literally, almost everything they were voting on was farming related.

Good. Fuck turkey bacon. It should still exist as a substitute, for my Muslim friends and whoever else, but they should call it something else.

After I posted this comment I looked up the etymology, the word “steak” literally comes from food being roasted on a stake. So, really, that should be the deciding factor - most steak we eat isn’t technically steak because it’s cooked in other ways.

Brazillian restaurants, the ones that come by with meat on a sword, should count as proper steak. Vegetables cooked in that manner could also be steak.

Yay, glad to see you understand reasoning and don’t just close off into your biased little echo chamber.

Well you’re not allowed to call it a “bean burger” anymore cause that would be coNfUSInG according to the animal mass murder lobby.

Can you find a primary source for this? Because all I see is articles that may well be clickbait. I want to see what they actually voted on.

I think certain terms are definitively meat, eg steak, but saying a burger is exclusively meat is like saying a pizza must have plain tomato sauce.

In any case, this hasn’t been finalised yet as the European Commission - the actual competent lawyers rather than populist representatives (who might not actually represent their voters) - have yet to have their say. I’d hope that common sense would withdraw “burger” from any law that comes out of this.

Edit: With (far too much) digging I managed to find what they voted on, and it does indeed include burger: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2025-0214_EN.html Ammendment 113, if you just search the page for “burger” you’ll find the list of terms.

These names include, for example:

  —  Steak
  —  Escalope
  —  Sausage
  —  Burger
  —  Hamburger
  —  Egg yolk
  —  Egg white.

It’s not meat, it’s a meat substitute.

You can say it is a replacement for the thing, you can’t say it is the thing. Simples.

Depends on how exactly it’s presented. There’s a fine line between saying the product is a substitute for something, and misleading people into thinking it is the thing. Like the OP picture, it says “cooks like ground beef”, which is okay in text, but on the box “cooks like” is white text on a light colour background, as if to create the possibility of you glancing at the packaging and only seeing “ground beef”.

If it’s just “No Chicken”, that’s fine, but if it’s like ^no CHICKEN then maybe not.

Fuck’s sake, 2nd time that’s happened to me in this thread. I thought steak should just be beef, but it turns out:

The word steak was written steke in Middle English, and comes from the mid-15th century Scandinavian word steik, related to the Old Norse steikja ‘to roast on a stake’, and so is related to the word stick or stake.

I don’t even want to look up bacon now, I need to believe that it should just be pig.

I agree that burger has always been agnostic, but steak should really just be meat. Etymologically, it was always meat roasted on a stake. Similarly, bacon should just be a specific cut of pig meat, not turkey. Both of these are intentionally misleading marketing - with bacon it’s even so when they’re using different meats, let alone vegetables.

Intentionally misleading people through advertising, in order to get more sales, is wrong.

And don’t get me started on American “biscuits” that are not cooked twice. They’re savoury scones.

It’s not about accidentally eating vegetables, it’s about products being marketed in a misleading way. If I order a pizza with bacon on it, I don’t want turkey, let alone a vegetable substitute.

However many terms are already agnostic, eg pattie, burger; these kind of things should be allowed. Also, “cooks like ground beef” isn’t a problem, however maybe the way the words highlight “ground beef” might be. Like, the “cooks from” and “made from plants” are white text on a light coloured background, as if to try and make it easier to miss.

There are already laws against intentionally misleading people with advertising. Done properly, this is just an extension of that, to counter businesses trying to get around the current law.

Well I think this law could be fine, depending on how far exactly it goes. I don’t really think it’s appropriate to call vegetarian products “bacon” or “steak”, however “burger” is already generic enough (you can have a beef burger, chicken burger, or veggie burger). In the article image, it says “cooks like ground beef” which should also be ok. A “pattie” is also not necessarily a specific type of meat. Hell, I even take offense at “turkey bacon” - the point is that it is intentionally misleading.

It really is.

There are laws against going into someone’s garden and picking their fruit, because fruit is valuable produce. This is slightly different, they invite you into their website, then they steal your valuable data for their commercial purposes without paying you for it.