Yup, very true. Just recently German chocolate producer "RitterSport" made a new chocolate product but were disallowed to call it chocolate because it doesn't contain any sugar (they used some substitute), which according to the definition a chocolate product has to contain to be called chocolate.

That turned out to be a marketing stunt

https://uebermedien.de/57277/wie-man-eine-neue-schokoladenso...

Just recently EP considered banning veggie burgers with the reasoning that something called a burger needs to contain dead animal parts.[0]

I'm glad they changed their mind.

[0] - https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-lawmakers-set-to-vote-on-...

Likewise, but the issue there is slightly different — if they had ruled that “burgers” had to contain meat, there would be a similar but stronger argument to force “hamburgers” to only refer to those made of ham.

Hamburgers are named after the place they were invented (the city of Hamburg), itself named after a big castle which in German is “Burg”.

And before anyone suggests one could also argue that “they’re only allowed to be called hamburgers if they’re from Hamburg and otherwise are just sparkling fried meat patties”, I apologise for spoiling the obvious joke by having looked up the EU rules for when something can be protected with a geographical designation (feta cheese, champagne, etc.) and discovered none of that sort of thing would apply.

The US has lots of those rules.

It's likely enough they would apply to more specific terms, beef/chicken/pork, and so on, though.

I'm not sure I'd consider regulatory capture and artificial barriers to entry by existing industries to be a good outcome, which is what this is; they rules aren't implemented to protect customers.