While the EU is discussing banning terms like "veggie burger" or "soy sausage", new data from Appinio provides a surprising insight: It's not the name that
The numbers show that the problem is not with the packaging but with the supermarket shelves. The proximity of meat and plant-based alternatives leads to confusion; simply banning names would likely have little impact.
This coincides with a pet peeve of mine: strategical supermarket shelving. When in previous decades there were separate sections for different types of produce, these are now mixed in thematically somehow. So, as an example, before there was refrigerated vegan products in one section, sausage/meat products in another, now there’s a section for “things to put on bread”.
Before there was an organic section, now organic food is mixed in with “normal” food and you have to look for a label.
This is no doubt to make customers buy more, but I fail to see how exactly. It just pisses me off. I might spend more time in the shop because of that but not more money.
I have practiced economical shopping, comparing prices and ingredients, for decades. I am not changing my habits.
They also want me to bend down more often - but that’s OK.
Many see this as a sideshow. According to hundreds of open-text responses, many consumers view the name debate as unnecessary or just “symbolic politics.” The majority prefer to see a focus on more urgent societal issues.
A certain type of voter gets riled up very nicely when you even suggest that eating less meat is an option. Therefore it’s specifically right-wing populist Symbolpolitik.
People are more likely to buy product products and proximity to whatever it is they’re trying to cook. Makes perfect sense to have all the “stuff you put on a sandwich” ingredients and close proximity, rather than having a separate section for organic or plant-based alternatives.
A shopper who wants specifically vegetarian or vegan options has to make a special trip to that section which may be in some other part of the store. That leads to less sales for those specialty products and higher turnover.
But up non-discerning shopper might decide to try a plant-based option simply because it’s next to their usual option, or they might buy it by accident. Either way that’s a win for the retailer because someone bought a product they may not have otherwise.
Unfortunately most of these legislations fall to the consumer to make informed decisions with limited education and information, while at the same time battling deceptive practices of the retailer and manufacturer.
The whole reason a lot of these regulations even exist in the first place is the widespread deception of manufacturers lying about their ingredients or quality of ingredients and the danger of making people sick or tricking them into making purchases.
This coincides with a pet peeve of mine: strategical supermarket shelving. When in previous decades there were separate sections for different types of produce, these are now mixed in thematically somehow. So, as an example, before there was refrigerated vegan products in one section, sausage/meat products in another, now there’s a section for “things to put on bread”.
Before there was an organic section, now organic food is mixed in with “normal” food and you have to look for a label.
This is no doubt to make customers buy more, but I fail to see how exactly. It just pisses me off. I might spend more time in the shop because of that but not more money.
I have practiced economical shopping, comparing prices and ingredients, for decades. I am not changing my habits.
They also want me to bend down more often - but that’s OK.
A certain type of voter gets riled up very nicely when you even suggest that eating less meat is an option. Therefore it’s specifically right-wing populist Symbolpolitik.
People are more likely to buy product products and proximity to whatever it is they’re trying to cook. Makes perfect sense to have all the “stuff you put on a sandwich” ingredients and close proximity, rather than having a separate section for organic or plant-based alternatives.
A shopper who wants specifically vegetarian or vegan options has to make a special trip to that section which may be in some other part of the store. That leads to less sales for those specialty products and higher turnover.
But up non-discerning shopper might decide to try a plant-based option simply because it’s next to their usual option, or they might buy it by accident. Either way that’s a win for the retailer because someone bought a product they may not have otherwise.
Unfortunately most of these legislations fall to the consumer to make informed decisions with limited education and information, while at the same time battling deceptive practices of the retailer and manufacturer.
The whole reason a lot of these regulations even exist in the first place is the widespread deception of manufacturers lying about their ingredients or quality of ingredients and the danger of making people sick or tricking them into making purchases.