Hamburger is somewhat traditional food. So it makes sense to be regulated as such - to not be able to name any crap hamburger, but only specific crap hamburger. One that is beef patty inside a bun. Having a animal derived patty by grinding is essential part of some item being called hamburger.
I realize this may be satire (Poe's law and all). But I disagree 'hamburger' should get protected status, in anything except the exact quotation without clear prefix/suffix. "Vegetarian Hamburger" (in near-equal font pt) should be fine, Veggie-burger shouldn't even be up for debate imo.
If fine-print is confusing consumers maybe we should improve our labeling standards rather than protecting a food category not in need of protection.
I think that's reasonable regarding expectations, but the flip side is you can't make a vegan patty and call it 'vegan burger like patty'.
The discussed regulation smells heavily of measures to protect the meat industry rather than the consumer who is absolutely able to discern between the classic and vegetarian alternatives.
Why not? Consumers are more likely to give vegetarian products a chance when they are 'drop in' replacements. A 'vegetarian burger' instead of a 'burger' would sell better than a 'plant based patty'.
Feel free to protect 'Hamburg-style Steak', but protecting 'burger' is stupid. Also very odd coincidence that the rise of vegetarian/vegan alternatives prompts the reaction, when nobody batted an eye at 'fish burger' or 'chicken burger'. I suppose that anything which promotes not murdering innocent animals is bad.
