Again, vegans almost always have to read the ingredients/labels, on every processed food product they plan to consume. The little 'vegan' icon on the back is new and not consistently used. Choosing a plant based lifestyle is A LOT more burdensome than not doing that. I know because I've switched back and forth many times and am married to a vegan. Whey, casein, random cream, honey, they're in everything.

Even so: reading ingredients is honestly not that hard.

Again: "you're holding it wrong".

Just because a plant based lifestyle is burdensome, doesn't mean people think it should be. And by that reasoning neither should any other diet. So I don't get why the projection of your experience onto the experience of others is so necessary

...no, in this case you are absolutely shopping wrong. Pay attention to the labels.

Oh believe me, I do especially after that, but that does not justify misleading labeling practices. It’s absolutely intended to be deceptive and ride on the good PR of other products.

That's not misleading labeling, and the naming is intended to explain what it's attempting to mimic. Many consumers appreciate that and use it as a signal when shopping.

If it says, "milk" or "cheese" or "beef" I absolutely should not have to read the label. These things were made by farmers thousands of years ago, and have fairly simple "recipes".

If you want to sell some vegetables or vegetable oil to vegans, I would have thought that vegans would go for it without the unappetizing association with dead, smelly, greasy animal carcasses.

Why does vegan food have to resemble the things that vegans avoid?

Even if something is milk, cheese, or beef, do you just... pick it up without looking at what the product is, or where it came from or is sourced from? Read the labels. It is not hard. You exist in a world with other humans who use words across a range of things and it's on you to know what you're buying.

>Why does vegan food have to resemble the things that vegans avoid?

First off: it's not just vegans who buy or are interested in this stuff. People can find it beneficial from a sustainability point of view.

Second, people like the originals! We have rich culinary history with recipes and tastes that people don't necessarily want to give up, but may want a more sustainable/cruelty free/[insert your reason here] alternative.

If you're so indiscriminate as a shopper then what does it matter if you eat vegan alternatives? They're better for you, better for the planet and often taste better.

The standard explanation is that those are aimed at ordinary consumers who wish to reduce their meat consumption but can't unless they taste something that tastes like meat (resp. dairy).

"chicken" and "butter" have good PR?

The whole point of these lawsuits is to damage vegan alternatives which are growing in popularity.

Of course butter and chicken have good PR: they’re delicious, nutritious and widely popular. They’re so pervasive in fact that you hardly notice their presence and if you don’t know what someone likes, chances are butter and chicken are a good starting point.