I think your answers would be more satisfying if the flavor and textures were closer on substitutes. I’m sure it is hard to do, I think I always assumed if companies spent more time making tasty meat alternatives, instead of trying to replicate meat we’d make more progress in reducing meat consumption. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking though.

I look at it as a person who eats meat but is interested in trying alternatives pretty casually. I’m not looking for something to replace meats in my life, I’m looking for new foods to fill the same role in a meal as meats (sometimes). And I just find it a bit annoying to have to go to the fine print / ingredient list so often to see what I’m actually buying.

I appreciate the chat though, I can see where you’re coming from. I think I treat food a bit differently from someone just looking to grab their components of a meal… and calling in “meat substitute” is mostly a tell that it’s high in protein and fills that roll in a meal. Removes the extra step of needing to know what parts of the alternatives have the protein…

If I cared enough I’d have some from-scratch recipes, but it’s more of a minor annoyance and something to think about while I shop

Isn’t cooking with the meat substitutes different enough that you need to compensate for it? I’m not a very good cook, so my assumption might be wrong there. But if I’m making reb bean burgers instead of beef burgers I imagine it’s more useful to know “this is mostly bean with some binder” than “beef substitute”

And if flavor is the main goal then I think the industry in general is doing a bad job. Most of the time the base for the substitute has such a different flavor that they throw a bunch of other stuff on top of it to mask it instead of embracing the flavor of the substitute.

I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, but it still doesn’t make much sense to me. Why remind people of the moral conundrum in the label.