Comment by gruez
9 hours ago
From cbc:
>In 1985, the Canadian government tried to stop Jamaican bakeries and restaurants from using the term "beef patty."
>At the time, Canada's Meat Inspection Act classified a beef patty as what goes in a hamburger. It could contain only meat and seasoning and it couldn't be encased in dough or a crust. Therefore, a Jamaican patty — widely known as a flaky pastry with a spiced beef filling — didn't meet the criteria.
That actually vaguely seems reasonable? Especially in contexts where there's only text to go by (eg. on a menu), people might actually be confused.
Did you know in Germany it's illegal to call a product "soy yoghurt" because yoghurt is a dairy product?
Having grown up in Toronto, unqualified "beef patty" means the Jamaican snack. It is extremely common junk food I would buy at a convenience store on my way home from school.
Not being from Toronto, never in a million years would I even think of that as a visitor.
I grew up in another country where Jamaican patties were popular and ordering a 'beef patty' would never get you a burger patty unless you were in a burger joint. Same as in Toronto; asking for patty (or beef patty) will 99% of the time get you a Jamaican patty.
2 replies →
How many visitors do you think would go to a restaurant intending to order a (hamburger) beef patty? The potential for confusion is overstated.
2 replies →
Sorry, but you're just uncultured if you don't know what Jamaican patties are.
This is like saying "never in a million years would I think 'butter chicken' is a red, spicy Indian curry instead of chicken roasted in butter".
Any confusion can easily be resolved by asking the person offering to sell you one what it is. I do not need terminological rules between me and fast food vendors; if I buy a 'muffin hot dog parfait' and it turns out not to be the tasty dish I was expecting, I may complain about it but I have the choice to just not go there again.
I support the idea of truth in advertising laws but I think they should be limited to factual claims. Courts shouldn't entertain lawsuits over such silly things either.
I am shocked to learn there is no dog in a hot dog. Calling my lawyer...
In Germany if they applied the laws consistently it would actually be illegal to call it a hot dog if it wasn't dog. Supermarket had to rename "chilli beans" to "kidney beans in chilli sauce" because there's no bean species called a chilli bean
it is impossible in canada to sell swedish meatballs - cant have the onion or breadcrumbs
> it is impossible in canada to sell swedish meatballs - cant have the onion or breadcrumbs
I don't know if that's just an attempt at humour, but it doesn't feel like it, so I'll correct you: that's factually incorrect, you can buy them commonly.
https://www.realcanadiansuperstore.ca/en/swedish-beef-meatba...
https://www.compliments.ca/en/products/meatballs-swedish-680...
It’s not that it’s unreasonable to think the word “patty” is ambiguous —it’s that it’s unreasonable to spend tax dollars on saving people from that ambiguity
> it’s unreasonable to spend tax dollars on saving people from that ambiguity
I quite appreciate the taxpayer funded regulation of technical terms - I like being able to buy ice cream at the store and know if it's "ice cream" or "frozen dessert". Or "cream cheese" vs "cream cheese product". Or many other similar things.
The Jamaican patty and fish sauce ones are problematic, but also happened 25-40 years ago.
Do you have an encyclopedic knowledge of which terms are regulated and which ones aren't?
Don't you think it would cause more confusion if people expecting to buy a Jamaican beef patty instead have to buy a "Jamaican beef-inside-pastry product" ?
1 reply →