It’s not a usage of of the word ‘style’ I’m familiar with.
To use an example from dining, if I went to a restaurant that advertised itself as having “buffet style dining” and was then sat down at a table and had a waiter come to take my order, I might question whether they had a buffet line. And I would find it shady if the waiter told me that they aren’t a buffet restaurant; they’re a buffet style restaurant.
That analogy makes no sense to me. “Style” means similar too- what you’ve described has no relation to buffet restaurants at all.
This is food that mimics meat in taste and look. It’s in the style of meat without being meat. Your analogy is almost as if a stalk of celery was being labeled at Pork Style. It bears no resemblance to the meat.
It would be if he hits you upside the head when he brings the food.
Looking at an image of the actual packaging it’s even more clear:
https://www.veganperfection.com.au/products/v-bites-gourmet-meat-free-mince
I would argue that a vegetarian meat substitute has no relation to meat. In fact, that’s the point of its existence. So it’s not in the style of meat.
I don’t feel you can say the word “style” is normally taken to mean “containing none of”.
And that was the point I was making with my example. A restaurant that has no relation to being a buffet should not call itself “buffet style”. And a food product that has no relation to being beef should not call itself “beef style”.
It’s meant to taste and feel like real meat. It’s clearly “meat-style.”
The word style meant to suggest it’s replicating the experience of meat. If the replacement has a meaty bite, meaty flavor, and is used as meat is used, then it has a lot of relation to meat. One might think it does it poorly, but it’s it’s meant to work in that space.
They’re trying to duplicate the flavor and texture of those meats. My block of ramen noodles is shrimp flavor but I don’t expect a 33 cent food item to have any shrimp or any natural seafood at all. Similarly, how many watermelons or green apples do you think are used for the production of Jolly Ranchers?
“Style”, in describing food, never means what it’s made of. It’s always about how it’s prepared. And this stuff, apparently, is prepared like pork, or like duck, or whatever, so it’s “pork style” or “duck style”. And if it were actually duck or whatever, they’d just say “duck pieces”, and the fact that they don’t should clue you in that it’s not duck. Now, that still doesn’t necessarily mean “vegetarian”: One can envision, for instance, duck-style chicken. But it should at least be enough to get you to look elsewhere on the package to see what it is.
So how do you feel about soy milk?
Agreed. “Style” to me is a misleading term there. Now, I think most people would think that something is up, read more and figure out the sleight of hand they are trying to pull (I mean, why can’t they just be honest and say “imitation” duck meat?)
To go with dining, how about “family style”? I interpret that to mean that food is served in communal bowls in the middle of the table and if you want some more green beans, you use the large spoon and get more green beans out of the bowl. If it was something different than that, then I would believe that the restaurant had misrepresented itself.
However “duck style” really has no common meaning, but I could see how someone might thing that it was duck cooked in the normal way or “style.” I don’t think it is illegal, but its pretty shitty, IMHO.
But I agree with you, “vegetarian duck” is an oxymoron. If you want to eat vegetables, great; if you want to eat meat, great, but if someone is selling you vegetables that purport to taste like meat, then they should lift a litter heavier than the word “style.”
I think this is just a case of bad advertising (or unclear website copy) due to shitty or non-existent marketing.
To be considered as “false” advertising you would have to show (prove?) they were deliberately attempting to deceive buyers into purchasing the meat-free product actual meat. As part of that, their packaging would also have to refer to the product as whatever type of “meat” product they were trying to deceive you into buying. It doesn’t seem like the product itself is falsely labeled.
It would be hard to argue that they’re being deceptive when advertising says it’s pure beef and then when you receive the product it’s labeled “beef flavoured soy”. That’s just being dumb.
I do a lot of marketing consulting for small businesses, many are just unsophisticated owner-operated shops who don’t really understand how to communicate with consumers or do it sloppily because they don’t have resources. That what it sounds like the US company selling these VBites is.
There’s no false advertising here. “Meat-style” means “not-meat.” Otherwise there would be no need to use that modifier.
“Duck Style!” “Wabbit Style!” “Duck Style!” :smack:
The descriptions are no worse than if somebody marketed “Turnip-Style Lamb Chops” or “Cucumber-Inspired Carnitas” to confused vegans.
*a notorious example of deception was selling spaghetti sauce “flavored with meat” (yeah, you, Ragu) having a microscopic amount of meat. If it had enough to detect with the naked eye it would have been sold as spaghetti sauce “with meat”.
If, when the bowls are placed in the middle of the table, you look around and realize you are not related to the other diners, do you feel cheated? Do you wish they would just be honest and call themselves “imitation family”?
Tom Scott put out what I think is a relevant video, discussing Gricean Maxims. The reason that “___-style” means “doesn’t actually contain ____” is because there would be no other reason to add the word style. They would just say “Beef Pieces Box” if they meant that it contained beef.
I agree with the others that only the first one is actually misleading–though I will admit the brand name itself implies they are vegan or vegitarian, due to their use of V by itself in the title.
I don’t see it as confusing at all. Product page:
To use Jackmannii’s example, if you were in a store and you saw a jar of spaghetti sauce that was labeled “Beef Style Tomato Sauce” would you think it contained beef or would you think it did not contain beef?
I don’t have a problem with that. I feel the use of the word “soy” makes it clear that this is not milk from a cow.
As I noted above, I have no problem if the product had been called beef substitute or imitation beef. Of something like soy beef or vegi-beef. I don’t mind the use of the word beef as long as I feel it’s clearly being identified as something other than actual beef. And I don’t feel “beef style” does that.
That’s not the product page in question. VBites produces the product and I feel it is very clear that the product does not contain actual meat.
What I was referring to was a company that sells VBites products and which renamed them to something I feel is not clear.