Finally, the European Commission has done something that is hard to signify with the shoulder. In a planet of language manipulation, where a "cotlet" can mean a blended thin, and a "stek" is simply a beet-colored soya, individual in Brussels decided: no more pretending.
The EC has proposed a ban on the usage of 29 terms reserved for meat specified as ‘bacon’, ‘cheese’, ‘chicken’ or ‘burger’ for vegetable products. For many vegans, it is an attack on marketplace freedom and the alleged right to "language creativity". But for a common consumer, it is yet a step towards common sense.
So far, the vegan lobby has done everything to sale its products by impersonating what – theoretically – it does not recognise. If meat is bad, unethical, harmful, why do vegan sausages, pastries and burgers so desperately scope for its aesthetics and naming? due to the fact that those words have value. They awaken appetite, bring back the taste of childhood, give the consumer the illusion that he does not gotta quit pleasure. but it's not marketing anymore – it's manipulation. Calling embossed tofu “steka” is like calling lemonade “shampan”.
Brussels explains that it wants to "protect transparency of communication" and "allow consumers to make informed choices". And in that, it's hard not to admit right. Especially erstwhile the vegetable meat replacement marketplace in Europe is increasing like yeasts – in Germany it has already exceeded a billion euros per year, and the trend is besides accelerating rapidly in France, the Netherlands and Poland. With each successive plant product, a description appears in the package, which, on the 1 hand, accentuates ‘meatlessness’ and on the other, attracts meat in the vocabulary. This chaos can no longer be ignored.
Especially since the European Commission is acting against an earlier ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU, which considered that associate States should not prohibit the usage of meat names for plant products if they are appropriately marked. And yet KE is trying to go against the current. Why? any propose the influence of the meat and dairy lobby, especially the Copa-Cogeca organization, which represents the interests of large agricultural producers. It's possible. But this does not change the fact that the consumer has the right to know what he buys – and the name is as crucial as the composition.
It is besides worth looking at the second pole: The planet wellness Organization has long since entered processed meat on the list of carcinogens – alongside cigarettes. Supporters of the plant diet mention these data, demanding the promotion of alternatives. But that doesn't mean you gotta force the chickpea into a pork loin. Language is not a propaganda tool. If veganism is to be a conscious choice, let it besides be honest in the communication layer.
It's not about fighting vegans. It's about simple honesty. If you reject meat, then have the courage to reject its symbolism. Name your products your way. Build a fresh culinary identity, and don't live on the back of the 1 you claim to criticize. due to the fact that as long as the vegan "side" is actually a fried part of coconut, it is simply a theatre – not a transparency.
That is why, although rare, the European Commission deserves a circular of applause. At least for trying to reconstruct reason to where logic replaced marketing. If plant food is to be the future, let it stand on its own feet. No meat. And no meat in the name.
