Linguistics professor rubbishes livestock industry claim to word ‘meat’

What does the word meat really mean? A linguist weighs in on the battle over vegan labelling – now the centre of a senate inquiry.

A fake-meat burger. If it looks like meat, and tastes like meat, but isn’t from an animal, is it still meat? Picture: Valeriu Campan

A war of words has erupted between the red meat industry and those passionate about the English language, following the announcement of a senate inquiry into the labelling of alternative protein products.

Queensland senator Susan McDonald announced her plan last week to launch a Federal inquiry to investigate the use of phrases such as “meat-free mince”, “sausage made with plants” and “vegan bacon”.

But Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney Nick Enfield said the meat industry’s arguments - including the claim consumers shouldn’t be presented with products pretending to be meat - “don’t stand up to scrutiny”.

According to the Macquarie Dictionary, the definition of “meat” includes both “the flesh of animals used for food”, along with “food in general” and “the edible part of anything, as a fruit or nut”.

Similarly, according to the dictionary the word ‘milk’ can be used to describe the liquid from “the mammary glands of female mammals”, as well as “any liquid resembling this,” such as in a coconut.

“The point is, who gets to say what is the true nature of a word’s meaning?” Prof Enfield said.

“It’s not up to the meat industry to dictate that. Etymologically and in terms of actual use of language, those objections don’t hold up.”

Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop said red meat products were bound to definitions as prescribed in the Food Code, such as any product labelled a sausage containing “no less than 500g/kg of fat-free meat flesh”.

“A loophole introduced half a decade ago for nut juices is now risking the integrity and reputation of Australia’s red meat category brand,” Mr McKillop said.

“While our industry is bound to the definitions prescribed in the food code, plant-based proteins can label their products whatever they wish. Clear definitions for meat exist under our export control regulations and these need to be reflected in the domestic market.”

Mr McKillop hit back at claims the red meat industry was being challenged by competition from plant-based alternative meat products, instead labelling it a “blatant attempt to misappropriate our industry’s category branding”.

 “The Australian red meat and livestock industry has no problem competing against such products, but it has to be on an even playing field,” Mr McKillop said.

 “What isn’t acceptable is dishonestly using our category branding for a product that doesn’t pay levies, doesn’t pay compliance costs and doesn’t have our centuries-old proud history.”

Mr McKillop said vegan products should develop their own category brand.

“These products need to be clearly labelled what they are, whether it is vegan patties or soybean meal chunks. The fact is that these highly-processed unnatural products aren’t meat, and they shouldn’t be able to use our industry’s brand to piggyback market their products,” Mr McKillop said.

National Farmers’ Federation chief executive Tony Mahar backed the senate inquiry, and said it was “essential” consumers were assured products are labelled correctly.

“Non-meat products must not be permitted to masquerade as meat, we must ensure there is truth in labelling,” Mr Mahar said.
Prof Enfield said new plant-based products entering a market traditionally dominated by the red meat industry was posing a “threat”.

“It’s a market, and it’s competition within that market. They’re not trying to trick people … the whole business model is based on people knowing it’s plant-based,” Prof Enfield said.

“There’s a threat to (the red meat) market, and it’s a powerful one. The plant-based meat thing is growing. Their arguments don’t stand up in terms of competition.”

MORE

MANURE-RULES BACKDOWN AFTER FARMER OUTCRY

LIVESTOCK, CROP LOSSES AND STORM DAMAGE REVEALED