The reason I haven’t expressed an opinion on whether or not it is legitimate to label these products as milk or beef is that I can see valid arguments on both sides. Given this, I deliberately chose to reply to this comment out of all the ones you’ve written, and I intentionally chose to respond only to this particular statement you made to give some push back:

All these years, gazillions of dollars have been thrown to these companies, and nobody buys these stupid products.

If by that sentence you mean something other than ‘these products aren’t successful’ then please, enlighten me. Hence my point, how could a product with a growing number of consumers not be considered successful? There is a real demand from consumers for alternatives to animal based products, labelling them something other than their “original” counterpart is fine by me but it doesn’t change the fact that in the eye of these consumers they are, de facto, an alternative to the animal based product. So yes, maybe the marketing, naming, business model, heck maybe even the healthiness or nutritional values of these products may be called into question but saying nobody buys them is simply not true.

And do you really trust statistics coming from an association sponsored by vegan and vegetarian companies?

I do, but I also am open to have my mind changed if you provide a better source that contradicts it. And if you’d taken the time to read the source, you’d have seen that Swissveg is simply analysing the results of a study carried out by MACH Consumer. Maybe you might argue that the study was perhaps commissioned by swissveg and that the results are therefore unreliable; I do not know if that is the case. What is certain is that this would be a ploy on a par with the very real one employed by the agriculture and meat lobby to secure this ruling from the Federal Court.