Do you remember Humpty Dumpty? He was an egg, and in a famous English nursery rhyme, he falls off a wall and there\u2019s no way to put him back together. However, somehow, he must have recovered, because we find him again in Lewis Carroll\u2019s second novel (the author of Alice in Wonderland<\/em>), titled Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There<\/em>. In this book, Humpty Dumpty, having fully recovered his form (both literally and figuratively), discusses words with Alice:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “When I use a word,” said Humpty Dumpty in a rather contemptuous tone, “it means exactly what I choose it to mean\u2026 neither more nor less.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n “That\u2019s a bit much,” Alice replied, “you must be able to give different meanings to words.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Well, I can see that,” said Humpty Dumpty, “but only depending on who\u2019s in charge.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, it\u2019s all about control. I like to think that Carroll had read The German Ideology<\/em> by Karl Marx, published a few decades earlier, and that he wonderfully popularized the assertion that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Individuals who make up the ruling class possess, among other things, the consciousness, and therefore think. As they dominate as a class and define the whole scope of a historical era, it is clear that they do so in all its extension, and thus, among other things, they also dominate as thinkers, as producers of ideas that regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their time. It is therefore clear that their ideas are the dominant ideas of the era.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, I\u2019m not sure if French MEP C\u00e9line Imart, from the center-right, had these authors in mind when she saw her amendment proposal for the Common Market Organization (CMO) approved by a large majority on October 7. Imart pointed out that \u201cit\u2019s a question of transparency and clarity for consumers, as well as recognizing the work of farmers,\u201d and added that she doesn\u2019t want to ban plant-based alternatives (as if she\u2019s so good\u2026), but only \u201cto ensure that terms have their real meaning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, at the moment, nothing has happened beyond what was mentioned above. Even though many headlines have claimed that \u201cEurope has banned\u201d calling soy-based burgers or chickpea-based meatballs as such, the truth is that the EU hasn\u2019t actually banned anything yet. The European Parliament does not legislate, but only proposes. The proposed amendment will now be considered by the Commission, which will initiate a discussion with Parliament and the Council, resulting in what, in a term Carroll would have loved, is called a Trilog<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Quindi calma e gesso, ma intanto cerchiamo di capire, dato che tutta quest\u2019ansia di chiarezza verso il consumatore \u00e8 quanto meno intermittente da parte delle istituzioni. Prova ne sia la riluttanza a usare in etichetta parole come \u201cartificiali\u201d o \u201csintetici\u201d per indicare, ad esempio, gli aromi di sintesi, ovvero molecole \u201cidentiche\u201d a quelle naturali ma ottenute in laboratorio spesso a partire da materie prime non commestibili. Sarebbe un bel modo, quello, di evitare confusione. Invece no, gli aromi sintetici si chiamano \u201caromi naturali identici\u201d, ma in etichetta possono essere indicati, per brevit\u00e0 (non sia mai mai che disturbiamo il consumatore a leggere una o due parole in pi\u00f9) sia come \u201caromi naturali\u201d sia direttamente come \u201caromi\u201d. Ma torniamo alle nostre faccende.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, let\u2019s take it easy, but in the meantime, let\u2019s try to understand, given that this anxiety for clarity toward the consumer is at least intermittent on the part of the institutions. Evidence of this is the reluctance to use terms like “artificial” or “synthetic” on labels to indicate, for example, synthetic flavors, i.e., molecules “identical” to those found in nature but obtained in a laboratory, often from non-edible raw materials. That would be a good way to avoid confusion. Instead, no, synthetic flavors are called \u201cidentical natural flavors,\u201d but on labels, they can be listed, for brevity (heaven forbid we disturb the consumer by adding an extra word or two), as \u201cnatural flavors\u201d or simply \u201cflavors.\u201d But let\u2019s return to our own affairs.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Old Words for New Products<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n There are several reasons why the \u201cmeat-sounding\u201d issue is not an immediate solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One reason raised by Stefano Bartezzaghi, a semiotician (he teaches at IULM in Milan) and journalist, who agreed to discuss these topics with us, is quite striking:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “It’s a clever idea, this ‘meat sounding,’ but technically it means nothing. You can\u2019t give a name to something new without referring to something known. The word ‘meatball’ comes from ‘meat.’ If the argument were that meatballs are only those made from meat, then butchers should sue paper mills that use wood pulp! When they invented the mast for sailing ships, they didn\u2019t ask permission from the lumberjacks (much less from the forests) to name it; when they gave a name to bunk beds, they didn\u2019t consult the aristocrats who lived in castles. Joking aside, language doesn\u2019t work that way, there are common words that serve to name innovations, and no one gets confused. We constantly talk about the web (spiderweb), mouse (the animal), platforms, and networks: they are not new words, but the objects that fall under their meaning are new. Why should those who produce plant-based food be deprived of part of their linguistic heritage?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most important reason, in legal terms, however, is another: there is no primary European law \u2013 such as a directive or regulation \u2013 that prohibits the use of butchery terms for other sectors. For milk, for example, there was a primary regulation, and that made it relatively easier, in 2017, to reach the European Court of Justice ruling that prohibits calling anything “milk” that does not come from the milking of a mammal, and prohibiting the use of dairy-related terms for products derived from plant-based raw materials. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So, goodbye to tofu butter, veggie cheese, etc. Italy saved almond milk, due to deep-rooted traditions, and other countries received the same exemption for established products, but the “new” soy or oat milks were not saved, and from that point on, they have been referred to as beverages or similar expressions on their packaging and labels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ideology, the ideology<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite everything, I still believe it exists,<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n it\u2019s about continuing to assert a thought and its why,<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n under the pretext of a contrast that isn\u2019t there,<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n if it is, who knows where it is, who knows where it is.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s start from there, from the legal contrast that could exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue is the Common Market Organizations (CMOs), which for each category of agricultural products (wine, cereals, milk\u2026) define a set of European rules, starting with the definition of the products themselves. We have already seen that for some categories, the rules are clearer, while for meat, the situation is still evolving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is a problem for the market, explains Stefano Masini, professor of Food Law at the University of Tor Vergata in Rome:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Any element of confusion or ambiguity in the information provided to the consumer translates, from a market perspective, into an obstacle to trade. The need for harmonization, aimed at standardizing linguistic rules in the circulation of food products, regardless of their qualitative characteristics, has already penalized our country due to the assortment of traditional products and consumption habits. I think of the term ‘vinegar,’ which traditionally in Italy is the result of wine fermentation and has been involved in a process of devaluation of differential qualities with a linguistic homogenization choice that has also included products derived from the fermentation of apples or pears, with penalizing effects for our producers, but in respect of other European traditions. From a legal perspective, the ruling on dairy products is a landmark, but for meat, a more complex definition must be pursued due to the lack of a precise definition.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n What makes things even more complex is the fact that technology allows the production of foods that didn\u2019t exist until recently, and thus they can only be given a comprehensible name, as Bartezzaghi said, by referring to terms that the consumer can understand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “On this, I completely disagree,” Masini clarifies, “because using terms known in the collective imagination and culture to classify products of different compositions influences consumer behavior and translates into a misleading operation, leading to an evident loss of value for traditional productions:”<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, we\u2019ve reached the painful point: the reasons of the market, the concerns for exchanges between countries, at least within the European Union. For this reason, when it comes to food definitions, individual member states cannot legislate; only the European Union can. This is also why Italy’s Law 172\/2023, \u201cProvisions on the prohibition of the production and marketing of foods and feeds made, isolated, or produced from cellular cultures or tissues derived from vertebrate animals, as well as the prohibition of using the term ‘meat’ for processed products containing plant proteins,\u201d is, shall we say, not very consequential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the amendment proposed by Imart relies on other elements; the market seems to be the last of the problems. The issue would be the protection of farmers’ know-how and clarity in communication to consumers. What does Bartezzaghi think about it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s clear that all this anxiety about regulating words has to do with the market and not with common use. You can\u2019t regulate common use. We continue to order a cappuccino with soy milk, with all due respect to packaging and labels. Just as we continue to call jam ‘jam’ even when it\u2019s made from peaches or apricots and not just citrus fruits. Regulation distances spoken language from written language in an attempt to stem the flow of changes. Labeling should aim at correctness toward the consumer, and you can set rules that all producers must follow, but you can\u2019t regulate how people speak. It might change over time, but it takes generations. It\u2019s like when street or square names change: for decades, both versions survive, and if you want to be sure to be understood using the new name, you\u2019d better mention the old one too, perhaps with an ‘ex’ in front.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Heraclitus already said: \u201cTo speak with understanding, you must rely on what is common,\u201d and this is reminded to us in Umberto Galimberti\u2019s latest book, Le disavventure della verit\u00e0<\/em><\/a> (Feltrinelli 2025). However, the fact remains that, in this specific case, the proposed ban doesn\u2019t seem to go in the direction of helping consumers choose, and it\u2019s unclear how an eggplant cutlet could harm the know-how of cattle farmers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf each of us became a purist, we\u2019d be ruined,\u201d continues Bartezzaghi. \u201cI\u2019m Milanese, for me, there is no other cutlet than veal. I\u2019m horrified by the idea of a chicken cutlet, let alone one made from eggplant. But as an observer of linguistic practices, I say the opposite: there are languages, and then there are sublanguages, variants of common language: they differ by region, ethnicity, or even social groups. When these groups meet, they\u2019ll need to find a way to understand each other, right? And how can they do that if not by starting with shared concepts and words that make sense to everyone? Here, there is no legality, and regulating by exclusion, rather than opening up to new meanings of already known words, creates friction between the decision of those who have the authority to regulate and those who hold the use of words. In informal speech or writing, the common usage will continue to prevail.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\nNothing has happened<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"20230419PHT80916](\"https:\/\/www.ruralhack.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/20230419PHT80916-cl-1024x683.jpg\")
Vecchie parole per nuovi prodotti<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Stefano](\"https:\/\/www.ruralhack.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Bartezzaghi_Stefano_350x350.png\")
Was Gaber Right?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Stefano](\"https:\/\/www.ruralhack.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/masini.png\")
The market doesn\u2019t want thoughts<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
If we don\u2019t use the words we have, how will we understand each other?<\/strong>
<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nFrom word to brand is just a step<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n