site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26880 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nudge towards Just(ice/ Egg)

As some may be aware, Europe has stricter non-trademark restrictions on what one is allow to call their product. In the EU a cheese may only be called a Feta or Parmesan if it is produced according to specified procedure in Greece or Italy, respectively and contains specfied ingredients. This geographic restriction even includes pastry such as Kalakukko. That a consumer might not taste the difference (or even find the johnny-come-lately superior) is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

The stated reason of making sure that the consumer is certain that the product matches what he imagines it to be, is also behind the recent push to ban animal deficient and even wholly lacking products, on cashing in on the perception of taste created by centuries of butchers and milkmen.

A maiori ad minus as "plant-based protein" products do not even taste the same, let alone contain the same nutrients as non-human animal derived ones, while cheddar-style cheese unapologetically made in the Green Mountain State and West Country Farmhouse Cheddar are similar in taste and nutrients, it stands to reason that restrictions on usage of meat-related names should be at least just as onerous as those related to geography.

An even better argument would be a survey asking consumers if foods with names such as: "malk", "chick'n nuggets", "just mayo", "beyond sausage", "chik'n apple sausage" [different brand than the previously mentioned nuggets], "chilli sin carne" contain milk, meat or eggs or if they have in the past been misled into buying vegan products which usually aren't clearly segregated, thinking they are omnivoric.

The latest news on this front comes from also one the biggest supporters of restrictions on usage geographic indicators, France. After a court voided an attempt last year to curtail cultural appropriation of companies like Beyond Meat™, the French government has on monday taken another swing at it.

That it falls to the country of de Gaulle and Pétain, and not the organization of Altiero Spinelli and Konrad Adenauer (which one would expect, given how involved the EU is with consumer rights) is due the latter abdicating this aforementioned duty.

Opponents of restricting what may be labeled a steak, burger, sausage, mayonnaise, or milk, claim that nobody is being misled and that consumers might be more easily convinced to purchase "Chick3n Nugg3ts" than "Breaded Soy for Frying", "Malk" than "White Oats Concoction". The argument goes that people might be reluctant to try new things and that they would be unfamiliar what to do vegan neologism-labeled products. That overcoming this reluctance, by hook or by crook, is necessary not only for the benefit of soy farmers and Impossible Foods™ but for the whole of humankind as replacing meat with vegetables reduces the risk or severity of climate crisis.

the belief that people's behaviors can be meaningfully influenced by packaging and labels seems wrong. Cig and other tobacco sales are still holding strong ,especially overseas, despite the package literally saying the product can kill you. sales were already in decline well before warnings became commonplace and adverts pulled

You're omitting a rather large confounding variable here, namely that the people who aren't deterred by cigarette packaging are addicts who have had their neurological pathways chemically remapped in order to be compelled to purchase the product. Not so with "Breaded soy for frying".

the warnings have been around for decades though, so many people who started smoking did so being fully aware of them

Look, the rationale behind this is the same as why Coca-Cola won't let you call your fizzy dark caffeinated drink containing extract of the cola nut "Coke". These regulations will be passed, and ordinary people will call these products "oat milk" the same way that "doing the hoovering" has passed into common parlance to mean vacuum cleaning no matter the model of machine used.

I'm not sure many people are actually tricked - looking up the packaging, chick'n nuggets, just mayo, beyond sausage, chick'n apple sausage, chili sin carne, most of them prominently call out the product is vegan or plant-based in a reasonably large font. The only exception is 'JUST MAYO', where 'egg free' is in a 90% smaller font, but still on the front label. It feels to me more like cheeky, attention-getting names than attempts to mislead. But changing the packaging to name the product 'PLANT-BASED CHICK'N APPLE SAUSAGE' in the same font and color won't hurt anyone, so I don't mind such a restriction.

I would be surprised if the average person knows what's supposed to be in mayo unless they've made it themselves or lived with someone who has. To non-food-nerds, mayonnaise is the white condiment, ketchup the red, and mustard the yellow.

The old just mayo packaging, before they were forced to changed, is by far the most egregious I've seen. It literally has a picture of an egg on the front with no 'egg free' disclaimer. I guess the claim was the plant superimposed on the egg was supposed to indicate that the egg was replaced by pea protein? I very much doubt the average consumer interpenetrated it that way, the name and illustration was much more suggestive of "only contains egg and neutral plant oil emulsion."

I think it’s pretty egregious, but at the same time an under-acknowledged part of these discussions is that these foods are almost always in a separate vegan aisle of the grocery store and so no normal person is going to mistake them under the sign saying ‘vegan food’ and next to mountains of more identifiably vegan products.

It depends; if that was on a shelf full of "mayonnaise products" and not corralled off into the vegan section, I'd definitely think that was a new brand of ordinary mayonnaise. I wouldn't buy it, but that's because I don't like mayonnaise.

In the case of "just mayo" with the picture of an egg on the front, it was literally carried in national US grocery store chains next to Hellman's "real mayonnaise." Reserving my commentary on mayonnaise as a food, at least Hellman's actually is an emulsion of egg and oil.

no normal person is going to mistake

Normal people are dumber than they look.

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

The verses suggest that these names are simply identifiers for preexisting categories. But the categories were made for man, not man for the categories. The question is what's most useful. On the one hand, I don't think anyone is deceived by a term like oat milk (though I'd be open to evidence that people are actually confused by that), and it's taken off because many consumers genuinely do find it a superior product to cow milk for coffee. On the other hand, it was not milk as people understood it when it hit the mass consumer market (antiquated definitions notwithstanding), and if it were instead required to be called "oat emulsion," consumers wouldn't have touched it with a ten foot pole. That would have been a worse outcome for consumers, so it would have been bad to put restrictions around use of the term milk, at least for oat milk products.

My main decider for whether a restriction is good or not is how often consumers end up deceived, regardless of whatever other labelling exists on the product. I do know my dad has mistakenly purchased a "chik'n nugget" type product, so I'd come on the other side for that particular labeling.

I think there are particular ways companies can navigate this. New World winemakers managed to create differentiation from lower tier producers by respecting the champagne appellation.

I largely agree with this, the entire thing seems like a backhanded way of creating monopolies for yourself by making it impossible to make the product outside of pretty substantial limitations, and often from a very small region. If you can only use the label “Provel Cheese” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provel_cheese) if the product is made in St. Louis from local cheddar, Swiss and provolone cheeses milked from Missouri cows, then I’ve effectively created a set of conditions so difficult to meet that it’s nearly guaranteed to be made by only a handful of companies who are then free to manipulate the price as they please. If I only require that any such provel that doesn’t meet that strict definition be labeled to note that (made in Wisconsin, perhaps, or from cows in Idaho, or whatever) then it’s not deceptive and if there’s no actual quality difference between a provel made traditionally in St Louis from Missouri milk, and a cheaper but non traditional provel, then th3 public is smart enough to make that decision.

It's worthwhile creating these categories and monopolies because that's what creates the value worth imitating in the first place. Most of what gets sold in the US as "champagne" is not the genuine article, doesn't come from Champagne, and isn't strictly speaking the highest caliber. But people buy it anyways. And if there was no protection in Europe over what Champagne meant, and anyone could contribute a definition, there would be nothing worth ripping off.

But if the average consumer is not really seeing a difference between “real Champagne” from the right region of France made with the proper grapes by traditional methods and a California knockoff, then the value is basically marketing, people aren’t necessarily choosing the product for anything intrinsic to the wine, they’re buying a brand, and probably believe in the product because of the price and the legend of French wines especially champagne.

I suspect this is true of most such products— if I gave a blind taste test between the “real” version of the product and one that doesn’t meet the label standards I question whether the average person can really tell the difference. A lot of the perception of quality is based in expectation based on reputation, cost and marketing.

So I think it’s still basically a monopoly situation, aimed less at protecting the public and more about protecting European monopolies.

On the other hand, it was not milk as people understood it when it hit the mass consumer market (antiquated definitions notwithstanding), and if it were instead required to be called "oat emulsion," consumers wouldn't have touched it with a ten foot pole.

Many completely new consumer products, dissimilar to anything that existed before with newfangled creative names took the market by storm. Of course, it was because they were better/cheaper/more addictive than natural product, something that does not apply so far to any of this "alternate" stuff.

Fake meat products are a bad idea since they will at best fall in the uncanny valley. They are never going to produce real dairy or meat from plants in a factory.

The vegan alternatives producers should stop emulating meat and instead focus on making something that fills the same role. Tasty on the BBQ would be better than almost meat. The goal shouldn't be to approach dairy or meat but instead create a product that fills the same niche. Instead of trying to recreate milk from a cow create an excellent liquid to have in coffee. It doesn't have to be white or resemble milk, it just needs to improve coffee.

Fake meats are handy because they allow use of existing recipes with a simple substitution, rather than requiring a new cookbook.

Agreed. They're also limiting to their audience to people who don't eat meat but still want something similar, which is a large number of people but not as large as it could be. I've never tried Impossible products and don't plan to. I do find, however, that pretty tasty "burgers" can be made with non-meat products, like portobello mushroom or black bean. These don't taste anything like beef, but they're not trying to; I can enjoy them for what they are and not in comparison to something else that I'm perfectly willing to have if I want it. I even think Garden Burgers are fine on occasion. I'm honestly surprised such products exist in the first place since I'd assume a vegetarian wouldn't be particularly interested in a meat-like product, but who knows.

There's a significant number of vegetarians (myself included) who miss meat and don't eat it for purely ethical reasons, although most are pretty sheepish about admitting it because vegetarian culture has a central myth that food lacking meat lacks nothing that food with meat has. For that group, fake meat is theoretically an attractive idea. In practice, though, it falls short.

They…are doing this. Tofu variants, tempeh, seitan, all the other not-quite-substitutes. Sometimes they get marketed as replacements, sometimes they’re very straightforward about filling a similar role. A savory, calorie-dense blob of protein and fats is always going be used similarly to meat.

Yeah, it's clear that the thumb has been on the scale to benefit the producers of fake meat-like products. Imagine if you took some cheap meat, processed and dyed it, and then labeled it as "heirloom tomatoes". That clearly wouldn't fly and neither should the opposite.

There was a weird amount of hype for these things a few years back, with Impossible and Beyond burgers being touted as tasting just as good as meat. They don't, and furthermore, they are terrible for your health.

Going further, Beyond (BYND) was a pump and dump stock scam, and now trades at 95% less than its peak 2019 price. Despite Beyond burgers being ungodly expensive, the company has gross margins of zero. Factoring in overhead, they lose 50 cents for every $1 in revenue. Cash reserves have dwindled from 1.1 billion to 200 million which means that bankruptcy could be looming in the next couple years. I'm sure some insiders got rich while index fund holders paid the tab.

Just kill this Frankenfood already.

Agree with everything except the financial market bit. Our IPO market is broken (make me the head of the sec lol) but it’s not insiders cashing out. It’s just trader versus trader and supposedly some win and some lose.

Historically firms only IPO a small float for a very good reason that public markets are different in how they analyze things than private markets. They look for countries hitting metrics and often have portfolios with many stocks versus focused funds. So they don’t know the companies that well at first. It trades for a while and then has some earnings reports and then insiders/private investors slowly add shares. For things with billions in market cap the public markets are just not able to absorb the entire float at one ipo. So they float 10% of the company typical though sometimes less. And all the insiders and private investors are usually banned from selling any shares for 6 months.

Now we have all these algo traders plus especially since COVID dumb retail money that have zero fundamental analysis. If the algo guys detect retail punting they bid it up crazy. And then you have that dude Huang who did the retail game at scale. And short selling is basically impossible in these names. Some thing blows up as a meme and it’s up 500% (happens all the time now) will blow up the shorts. They also changed a bunch of short borrowing stuff to prevent shorting without a borrower but then your borrow rate can blow out crazy.

Those first 6 months of trading are basically fake prices. Insiders aren’t allowed to sell. Shorts are too dangerous. And IPO stocks don’t just enter etfs (potentially some IPO etf but those often wait 6 months plus). Things like Tesla were public for I think a decade before they entered majorly etfs like spy.

It’s basically just a little Vegas part of markets without a ton of real investment. I find it embarrassing when stocks like VFS has a $150 billion market cap but I believe they only floated 1% of their shares so even the mark to market peak only had a $1.5 billion worth of shares on the public market. I wish they would find a way to fix this issue because I find it embarrassing when people like you say what Wall St idiots valuing this shithole at this price. Everyone does in fact know it’s crap but it’s not like you can short it and make money.

And then you have that dude Huang who did the retail game at scale. And short selling is basically impossible in these names. Some thing blows up as a meme and it’s up 500% (happens all the time now) will blow up the shorts. They also changed a bunch of short borrowing stuff to prevent shorting without a borrower but then your borrow rate can blow out crazy.

That's why shorting bitcoin so much better than shorting stocks. No manipulation with the floats, less $ from hedge fund manipulation. Stocks can easily be manipulated by management , whereas this is not possible or harder to do with bitcoin. Crypto is one of the most overhyped things ever, yet nothing but downhill since 2021 despite endless hype still. It would seem there does come a point where no amount of hype can help an asset class. Commodities overall , which crypto is more commodity-like than stock-like, tend to be better short candidates compared to stocks due to absence of earnings , buybacks, etc.

Stocks can easily be manipulated by management , whereas this is not possible or harder to do with bitcoin

My experience is different - broad community consensus is that there are whales and brokers that go hunting for liquidity, massacring shorts and longs. The technical term is 'scamwick'.

The technical term is 'scamwick'.

Interesting. I'm not really a crypto guy (read Satoshi's whitepaper when BTC were going for pennies), or a trader, but I know a little bit about technical analysis. The "wick" here is the wick of a candle chart, which shows the open & close, high & low, for a given trading period. The delta between open and close forms the body of the candle, while the high and low (which necessarily equal or exceed the open and close) form the "wicks" (upper and lower) of the candle. A so-called scamwick is a recognition of suspicious price movements which indicate price manipulation.

My prior on "price manipulation" is that most manipulators lose in the long run, at least for deep markets, but that the attempt to manipulate prices is an important part of price discovery and akin to "random noise" which motivates the true price.

management can try to prop up stocks with bogus PR. this is not possible with bitcoin. no amount of hype by Blackrock, Ark and others is enough to make bitcoin price go up. Even with whales , my experience is shorting is not a problem. gains do not hold , and when it does go up /down it's in a predictable manner...like pulling money out of a broken ATM.

Blackrock, Ark and others is enough to make bitcoin price go up

In 21, Elon's tweets were a primary driver of price action. I lost a fair bit of money based on his announcements.

I would advise caution in shorting bitcoin just before the halving too.

In 21, Elon's tweets were a primary driver of price action. I lost a fair bit of money based on his announcements.

yeah this stuck me as unethical and reckless on his part especially given tesla quietly sold its bitcoin position in 2022 as retail investors who heeded his advice bought at or near the top and held on the way down, both btc and doge

When Beyond's lockup expired in October 2020, they were still trading at $100/share. ($11 now and still overpriced). Insiders absolutely cashed.

Nothing like Alex Karp levels, but yes, this was a transfer of wealth from your pension fund to company insiders. Dumb money retail sets the price, and then indexers come and buy in volume. So while you and I might realize that Beyond at $100 was fake, your pension fund was more than happy to buy in size.

Did it enter an index? Maybe the Russell. They all have some rules to prevent the worst stuff.

Yes, it's in the Russell 1000, Russell 3000, and Nasdaq Composite. (Because it's a tech stock, lol).

If you own VTI, you own it. Its not in the SPY index which has a profitability filter. But this doesn't mean that SPY is shenanigans proof. People front run stocks before they enter the SPY.

Am I butt-hurt that people who aren't me are becoming centimillionaires on the back of this stuff? Yes, I am. This is the real wealth inequality, not some doctor making $400k or whatever.

Beyond has multiple insiders who made $10 million plus on insider sales in the last 3 years alone. I don't have the totals from 2019, but they would be way worse, quite possible 9 figure exits. https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/BYND/insider-trades/

Lockup periods need to be 5 years at least.

Ya. Tesla was the big shenanigan in SP500.

Though at the higher price in BYND a reasonable time after lock up settling it was $8-10 billion. I don’t see that as obviously stupid. As there have been plenty of things I’ve called obviously stupid like crypto being more than a nerds play thing.

Conceivably BYND could have gotten a little flywheel going and continued to innovate into healthier better options. Maybe eventually add lab meats and become a behemoth. As the first to market they could have become the platform for all alt meats.

Water in a bottle companies have been sold in that range of 6-10 billion so atleast they innovated.

There have been far worse offenders than bynd. And I do feel like the SEC should figure out how to end some of the worst offenders. Chamath one of the worst. Whatever that Vietnamese electric car company that went to 130 billion last week was. Just makes are markets look comical. Maybe give companies rights to randomly sell stock if it’s behaving stupid to keep the punters out. It just seems like we could have a more orderly market.

I’d still think that for the most part pensions funds etc didn’t lose on these things (large amount).

Conceivably BYND could have gotten a little flywheel going and continued to innovate into healthier better options.

I sort of get what you're gesturing at. A flywheel represents the difficulty of spinning up a new market. You need to solve both supply and demand at the same time to get the engine running. Failure is catastrophic while success is a money machine. If there is an imbalance, the flywheel is bottlenecked and doesn't want to spin.

In this case, the flywheel represents the pseudo-meat market, I suppose. There have been meat substitutes and meat replacements before, but this is really a new kind of market and new kind of product. Maybe this particular market is cursed, but if the flywheel gets going, then maybe:

continued to innovate into healthier better options.

AKA the pivot

Think you got it. Not necessarily a pivot though. It’s more like Tesla.

Entering Market as basically custom handmade cars.

Develop experience building cars and improving battery tech. And marketing skill. Plus develop car programming.

Enter at more scale and cheaper price point. Repeat all the same process improvements.

Once again cut price point and increase operational scale.

For beyond it would have been make $300-400 million a year selling shitty vegetable meat. Invest that in better vegetable meat at more scale. Probably eventually add on some kind of lab grown meat. Use experience in day chicken to expand into all kinds of lab meats.

Fair enough. By and large I think we agree. Beyond was a bad investment, insiders got rich, and pension funds lost (debatable how much). But it wasn't a scam like Nikola or some of the other worst offenders.

Were pension funds substantially invested in Beyond? The Canadian teachers probably did, but they’re notorious gamblers (admittedly it’s paid off for them they’ve have something like 9% annualized real returns for 40 years), but most won’t have. I don’t care to find their cap table, and they’re not hugely helpful for pension funds ownership anyway for various reasons, but I’d be surprised if pension funds were well represented among the top institutional shareholders.

Of course there was a lot of hype for these. A perfect replacement for burgers is a white whale for food science.

Like everything in bizarro-venture-capital-world, valuation is only loosely coupled to fundamentals. Discovering the actual level of demand is not trivial. Congratulations, fake meat has experienced the tech hype cycle! It’s not unique to “Frankenfood.”

What makes them bad for your health? I wouldn't eat them except as a one off experiment, since I'm an unapologetic meat eater, but I haven't heard that claim before.

Eyeballing the ingredients, it looks like the beyond burger is about 15-20% seed oils. That completely rules it out in my book.

What's your beef (rimshot) with seed oils?

I think they're the cause of the obesity epidemic and the main cause of chronic disease.

Seed oils are a meme, the evidence against them is limited. Some of the most ‘ultra processed’ foods are vegan foods, but they’re also stuff like salami made using the traditional method, packed full of sodium nitrate. We don’t know, it’s like microplastics, there’s a lot of supposition bur the assumption is they’re probably deleterious in some way.

Ah, so more naturalist fallacies at work.

Some of the most ‘ultra processed’ foods are vegan foods

I do like the joke about Oreos being completely vegan and therefore a health food. Always gets a chuckle out of me.

Beyond burgers are an ultra-high processed food

The first three ingredients are pea protein isolate, expeller-pressed canola oil, and refined coconut oil. The rest is the usual assortment of flavors and additives.

In my opinion, the taste is mostly okay especially if paired with a good bun and tomato. But the terrible health profile make them a no-go for me.

I have always found the "ultra-processed" definition lacking. I don't doubt the conclusions generally, but "processed" is a very broad definition, and I think deserves a closer set of guidelines: hydrogenated oils, breaded-and-fried foods, and such are far worse than, say, hummus, which is "processed" by pureeing a few fairly-healthy ingredients. I think it'd be a lot clearer to grade processes rather than count them.

Coconuts are obviously seeds, but are peas? What about other legumes?

Asking because of the “seed oil” comment above. The real percentage could be much higher if we count peas.

Seed oil in practice seems to just refer to polyunsaturated fats, which is probably listed on the nutrition label.

I haven't looked into this deeply, but I recall when Impossible and Beyond were first coming out, all promotional material conspicuously ignored commenting on how healthy the food was, which is highly unusual for a plant-based meat-imitation product, and all independent analysis tended to point out that they were, pound-for-pound, less healthy than actual meat. This led me to conclude that they were almost definitely at most as healthy as regular meat and likely less healthy, even if I don't recall what the exact reason was; I think higher saturated fat than regular meat?

I think higher saturated fat than regular meat?

That would be highly unusual because saturated fat mostly comes from animal products. It’s probably high levels of polyunsaturated fat, which vegan food in general uses immense amounts of.

Coconut oil in particular is mostly saturated fat

It also depends on what you mean by “healthy”. Plants simply don’t contain all of the necessary nutrients humans need.

I try to buy at least one kalakukko a year, and this just reminded me I haven't yet managed to grab one this year. Thanks!

As some may be aware, Europe has stricter non-trademark restrictions on what one is allow to call their product. In the EU a cheese may only be called a Feta or Parmesan if it is produced according to specified procedure in Greece or Italy, respectively and contains specfied ingredients. This geographic restriction even includes pastry such as Kalakukko. That a consumer might not taste the difference (or even find the johnny-come-lately superior) is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

I've long considered this position to be unnecessarily strict. Something that is produced according to specified procedure and contains specfied ingredients, just not in the right location, is lumped together with food that is only tangentially related to the original PDO product. As a consumer, I want to be able to choose between Wisconsin Schmeta, Wisconsin Feta and PDO Feta. European rigidity results in less visibility for me, not more: either some country caves in and labels both products from Wisconsin "Schmeta", forcing people to look at the fine print to determine if it's practically feta or some soy-based spread, or they don't and all three products are labelled "Feta", again, forcing people to look at the fine print.

I as European welcome this. Different example is that for instance to call something butter in EU, it has to have between 82 and 90% butterfat and maximum of 16% water. So what happens in practice is that you have brand name of your local diary producer with Butter name on it and you know what you get. If you see something else, then it is some fake product. I consider this as very valuable for the sake of informing the customer about the quality and content of the product.

I want to offer a data point since your example caught my eye. My go-to butter, from a very respectable American dairy brand, is 81% butterfat. Butter isn’t what they’re most known for and I don’t think chefs seek it out, but I prefer it to the well-reviewed European brands I have tried. So it surprises me that the EU forbids it to be called butter.

On the other hand, America’s minimum alcohol content for liquor to be labeled with the obvious categories (whiskey, brandy, gin, etc.) is 80 proof (40% ABV) as opposed to the EU’s 75 proof (37.5% ABV). I don’t know what that says about us, but I am grateful for it.

But by the same token, if a dairy co-op in Ireland started producing and selling "Wisconsin cheese", I'm fairly sure the Wisconsin dairy industry would lodge an objection to them piggybacking off the recognised brand of "the Dairy State".

Idk, Texas Roadhouse seems to be doing just fine despite being from Louisville, Kentucky.

See also: Arizona Tea.

Texas: we really are the largest brand out of all the states.

Why would someone in Wisconsin put Maine, Greece or Canada on their cheese? If the name on a package is a place name, it is expected that the product is from there. Can an Indonesian factory start selling Swiss watches? Geneva watches with manufactured in Jakarta written in tiny print would be a lie.

Feta can only come from Feta. Dairy is different depending on the cows/sheep and the local practices and traditions. Feta isn't just a generic product but represents much more than that. Reducing local food product to nothing more than a generic product kills. For many smaller producers the protection they receive help them preserve their communities and smaller businesses.

Sparkling wine can be made in many places and I am sure there is excellent sparkling wine from more regions than Champagne. But instead of trying to freeload of the Champagne brand these producers should build their own brands and promote their type of wine.

Because feta, like cheddar, Gouda, havarti, provolone, and all other cheese varieties is a style of cheese which can be made anywhere. There’s nothing special about Greece that prevents other places from producing equivalent or even superior cheeses.

Because all of these names have become names for a style of product rather than just a place name. Cheddar is a style of cheese, not any old cheese from a particular village in Somerset. Same for all those other cheeses, and many of the wines, particularly including champagne. Europeans and other supporters of protection of origin (like India) like to pretend this isn't true but it is; Basmati is both the name of a place and the name of a variety of rice. The Europeans pretty much showed their hand on this when they banned not only "Champagne" but "méthode champenoise" on wine labels. It's not about expectations of customers, it's about protectionism.

Europeans and other supporters of protection of origin (like India) like to pretend this isn't true but it is

That's a pretty silly way to put it. People also use product names like 'googling stuff' for other search engines, yet the US still allows Google to trademark their name and then bans other companies from slapping Google on their search engines. That's not some sort of denial about how people use language. Legislators simply don't allow language use to dictate things like trademarks and in the EU, product names.

I agree with you that doing a survey of consumers to see how many were misled about what they were buying is necessary before knowing what the correct policy should be here.

As some may be aware, Europe has stricter non-trademark restrictions on what one is allow to call their product. In the EU a cheese may only be called a Feta or Parmesan if it is produced according to specified procedure in Greece or Italy, respectively and contains specfied ingredients. This geographic restriction even includes pastry such as Kalakukko. That a consumer might not taste the difference (or even find the johnny-come-lately superior) is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

Based and trad.

Such strict laws defining ingredients and production methods of foodstuffs are old tradition in Europe (yes, beer was always considered basic foodsfuff in German lands)

The argument goes that people might be reluctant to try new things and that they would be unfamiliar what to do vegan neologism-labeled products. That overcoming this reluctance, by hook or by crook, is necessary not only for the benefit of soy farmers and Impossible Foods™ but for the whole of humankind as replacing meat with vegetables reduces the risk or severity of climate crisis.

Yes. exactly such crap creates "climate skeptics".

If everything about this issue is so fradulent, maybe the whole thing is fake to the core, greenhouse effect does not exist and Earth is not warming at all.

edit: link

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats