The consumer expectation would typically be of a meat product and they're misleading you that that's what you were buying instead of highlighting what sort of product it actually is. It just seems anti-consumer and like they're embarrassed of the actual product, to not highlight the fact it's an imitation product.
Seems unnecessary. If these are good products you'd think they'd stand on their own.
Y tho. Why do you care that it's meat? You know I might be in the minority here, but the reason I eat food is cause it's nutritious and tastes good. Not because it's meat.
It's just what people want to buy in this case. Could be familiarity, taste, some other features of the product.
You know I might be in the minority here, but the reason I eat food is cause it's nutritious and tastes good. Not because it's meat.
I think most consumers have more expectations from products they're buying that it's just nutritious. Having expectations on the actual ingredients is very common.
tastes good
Usually the products in question taste different from what they're imitating. That's one of the issues.
I've never seen fake meat that looked like meat but didn't taste like it. Except for when it tasted better. Then again, I may be biased, because I dislike the taste of guilt.
Our building has a lot of vegetarian and vegan families so I got to sample a lot of vegan imitation products. I've never tasted one that got it right or very close at all. Mind you, most of them taste good but it's just nowhere near the same. And imo they needn't be, could just be its own thing but well, they chose a different path.
But in any case, the issue is that the consumer thinks they're buying one thing and get another thing. And the manufacturer in question seems to intentionally be trying to cause that mistake. Just seems shady and unnecessary, since some of these products are fine, even though they're not the same as the product they were imitating.
"We're not trying to trick people by highlighting the confusing term way above a more descriptive ones while we're creating an imitation product, consumers are just bad at reading."
Sure thing. I bet it's a total accident. Companies would never try to mislead the consumers after all.
But when the consumers typically are looking for a steak they are looking for a steak out of meat and not a plant based imitation product. How are you not getting it? The issue is of consumer wanting one thing and getting another.
It's the one people are looking for in the vegan meat aisle.
The issue is that these products can be side-by-side, like said.
It does make the case that steak is the shape instead of a necessarily meat product, so it's allowed to use (even though typically steak is of meat and that's what people are typically buying). For sausages you'd need to have a specific indicator of it being an imitation product. A sausage alone would be considered a meat product. A few have got in trouble for misleading. Names having to do with parts of the animal are verboten, salami also because of the process, bacon and kebab.
Jos nakin valmistaja korvaa nakeissa perinteisesti käytetyn lihan kokonaan tai osittain jollakin muulla ainesosalla, esimerkiksi kasviksilla, on tuotteen nimessä tai sen lähellä oltava selkeä maininta ko. ainesosasta, esimerkiksi soijanakki tai porkkananakki tai kasvisnakki.
This is the one a lot of them are skirting. The situation used to be worse, now they're doing okay and a lot of the products are just sold as their own thing but some still are being annoying about it and seeing what they can get away with.