We are in the prolegomenon of the creation of animal protein substitutes with vegetable proteins and cultured cells. These new products have a clear tendency to reproduce the appearance of meat in terms of texture, color, flavor and even shape. With ground meat, the similarity is unseen before.
Heura's commitment to "chicken without chicken" sounds interesting from any point of view that it is seen, either from this side or from the other side. But it is not long before the debate arises - if it has not already arisen - that it is not chicken, and therefore should not be called chicken.
I agree that we should reach a general consensus about what is chicken and what is not. It's fair. Not only for producers, but for the consumers to know what they are eating. However, I started reflecting on whether the debate is worthwhile or not, for which I will use a couple of examples.
I originally write this blog in Spanish, so the first example comes from that language. In Spanish, the word "correo” (mail) originated from the verb “correr” (to run). Yes, it surely comes from the people who went from point A to point B to deliver a message, which then used transportation and now, it is electronically. That is, we adapted the verb “run” to something that is no longer run. And as far as I know, no mail service has claimed that the email should not be called mail.
Let’s also discuss chocolate. How many “chocolate” labels and packages claim to be chocolate, when they have a lot of ingredients (starting with the spooky amount of sugar), except cocoa beans, or else they contain very little cocoa. So chocolate, as we know it, is not chocolate. And we eat it anyway. So, will it be worth discussing the "chicken without chicken"?
It may be advisable to see how the dairy industry has handled the issue of milk, with soymilk, almond milk, oat milk ... milk without milk. Maybe we learn something from them.
What do you think?