Vegan

Vegan (pronounced vee-guhn or vey-guhn)

(1) A vegetarian who omits all animal products from their diet and does not use animal-based or sourced products such as leather or wool.

(2) Someone from Vega, towns in Scandinavia, the US or (mostly in fiction) other places so named.

(3) A collective name adopted in the 1980s by fans of the singer-songwriter, Suzanne Vega (b 1959).

1944: A modern English construct, veg (contraction of vegetable) + an, coined by Donald Watson (1910-2005) to distinguish those who abstain from all animal products (eggs, cheese, etc) from those who merely refuse to eat the animals.  The -an suffix occurred originally in adjectives borrowed from Latin, formed from nouns denoting places (Roman; urban) or persons (Augustan) but now productively forms English adjectives by extension of the Latin pattern.  The suffix an, and its variant ian also occurs in a set of personal nouns, mainly loanwords from French, denoting one who engages in, practices, or works with the referent of the base noun (historian; theologian); this usage especially productive with nouns ending in ic (electrician; logician; technician ).  Vegan is a noun & adjective, vegansexual is a noun and veganism, vegansexualism & veganist are nouns; the noun plural is vegans.

Donald Watson was an English animal rights advocate who founded The Vegan Society in 1944.  Although the actual establishment of the society was either 5 or 12 November (the records are contradictory), World Vegan Day is each year celebrated on 1 November.  In 1984, a dissident faction broke from the group and formed The Movement for Compassionate Living and ever since, veganism has been a contested space, the factions including (1) radicals who pursue direct action against the slaughter industry and its customers, (2) purists who exclude to whatever extent possible the presence of animal products in their lives while variously tolerating, ignoring or disapproving of those who don't and (3), vegetarians who can't resist nice handbags and shoes.  Latest vegan news here. 

The Sexual Politics of Meat

While still an undergraduate at the University of Rochester, Carol J Adams (b 1951) was instrumental in having women's studies courses added to the syllabus.  A long-time vegan, she later gained a masters from Yale Divinity School but her core interest remained feminism and in 1990, building on earlier essays, she published The Sexual Politics of Meat, an exploration of her vegetarian-feminist, pacifist, intersectional critical theory.

Her most novel concept was the "absent referent", used to explain the consumption of meat and the objectification of women in pornography, the referent literally absent in the case of the life of the dismembered beast being consumed; metaphorically in the oppression of the life of the subjects of pornography.  Adams constructed parallels within the patriarchal system, men’s sense of entitlement over animals similar to their varying expectations of the right to abuse, exploit, or degrade women in the use of their bodies.  Structurally she noted, language is replete with terms and phrases which interchangeably can be used to describe either women or animals with a hierarchy of use based on speciesism depending on men’s perceptions of degrees of female attractiveness.  All such use she claimed, regardless of how else it could be classified, is hate speech.

Most graphic was the notion of the pornography of meat which drew a visual comparison between meat advertised for sale on shelves and the portrayal of women in various media; two different forms of consumption which use the same techniques of production and distribution.  Within the western consumer model, Adams found a construct of white male supremacy which relegated all others, different races, non-human animals and women, to inferior roles or places.

Linder Sterling in meat dress (1982).

Linder Sterling (b 1954) is a radical feminist artist.  In November 1982, as part of a punk performance in Manchester’s Haçienda club, she appeared in a dress made from meat, while packages of leftover raw meat wrapped in pornography were distributed to the audience.  The performance culminated with a quite aggressive critique of the exploitation of women which, at the time, seems genuinely to have been confronting.

Lady Gaga in "meat dress" (2010).

By 2010, the "waves" had made feminism diffuse, the inherently post-modern platform of social media had imposed on pop-culture an inevitable equivalency of value and there was perhaps no longer a capacity to shock, just to be photographed.  Lady Gaga's (the stage-name of Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (b 1986)) meat dress (asymmetrical, with cowl–neck), worn at the MTV Video Music Awards is now remembered as just another outfit, named by many as the fashion statement of 2010.  While there was cultural comment, the piece's place in history is as a frock, not for any meaning, implied or inferred.  Lady Gaga though remained phlegmatic, quoted later as saying, "...it has many interpretations.”  She later clarified things by saying the meat dress wasn't significant as a piece of clothing but was intended as a comment on the state of the fashion industry and the importance of focusing on individuality and inner beauty rather than superficial appearances.  One implication may have related to impermanence; because the garment was made wholly from raw meat, it had to be preserved with chemicals before and after the event but there are limits to what's chemically possible and the parts of the garment which had decomposed were discarded before the remains were dried and a permanent coating applied.  The preserved dress has since been displayed although Lady Gaga has confirmed she no longer wears "meat-based" clothing.  

Tash Peterson letting people know how sausages are made.

Something of a local legend in the world of vegan activism, Tash Peterson (b circa 1995) is an animal rights activist based in Perth, Australia.  Not actually in the militant extreme of the movement which engages in actual physical attacks on the personnel, plant & equipment of the industries associated with animal slaughter, Ms Peterson's form of direct action is the set-piece event, staged to produce images and video with cross-platform appeal, the footage she posts on social media freely available for re-distribution by the legacy media, her Instagram feed providing a sample of her work in various contexts. Ms Peterson is a vegansexual (a vegan who chooses to have sex or pursue sexual relationships only with other vegans).

Her events have included approaching people in the meat section of supermarkets, wearing a blood-soaked butcher's apron while carrying the simulated carcass of a chicken, donning a rather fetching cow-skin (presumably synthetic) bodysuit in front of a milk and yoghurt display while carrying a sign surmising the processes of industrial dairy farming in anthropomorphic terms, wearing bloodied clothing to fast food outlets while using a megaphone to address queues of customers, explaining the details of what's done to animals so they can enjoy their burgers and, eschewing even the sensible shoes she usually wears, adorned in nothing but a pair of knickers and liberally smeared with (what she claimed to be her own menstrual) blood, staging a protest in Perth's Louis Vuitton shop, shouting at the customers and calling them "animal abusers".

Tash Petersen on OnlyFans.

Ms Peterson was banned from all licensed venues in Western Australia after storming pubs and restaurants, her critique of course the content of the meals rather than their sometimes dubious quality; after that, she travelled briefly to the eastern states but has since returned to Perth.  She has an active and apparently lucrative account on OnlyFans with all that that implies but there is an element of animal rights activism even there so whether her two interests should be thought vertical or horizontal integration might be an interesting question for economic theorists.

Fellow club member Lindsay Lohan who remained a carnivore.

Veganism can be merely a personal choice and there are many who have adopted at least the dietary aspects simply because they believe there are benefits for their health but it can also be a political statement and political statements need publicity, the preferred modern form being the celebrity endorsement and if need be, one paid for.  In 2010, the animal rights organisation PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) offered to subsidize Lindsay Lohan's stint in rehab, on the condition she became a vegan.  For PETA, it was the chance to make the point that while undergoing treatment for substance addiction, Ms Lohan would be able also to rid herself "... of one more toxic substance: meat.", adding "As you know, a crucial part of any recovery is showing charity to others. One way to do this is to be kind to animals, the Earth, and your own body. You'll never regret it." 

Ms Lohan had previously attracted the attention of the organization, in 2008 making their "worst dressed list" after being photographed wearing fur.  According to E! Online, PETA offered to contribute US$20,000 towards the US$50,000 cost of the court-ordered stay, half to be paid for adopting the vegan diet while in rehab, the remainder if the diet was followed for one year following her release.  To encourage acceptance of the offer, it was accompanied with a vegan-care pack including a DVD about the slaughter industry called Glass Walls (narrated by former Beatles bassist Paul McCartney (b 1942)) and a vegetarian/vegan starter kit.  While rehab went well, the offer apparently wasn't taken up and although she seems to now eschew fur, her Instagram feed continues to feature much leather (handbags & shoes) and meat (the odd recipe provided including a chicken pie and machboos, a favorite in the Middle East).

Kebab

Kebab (pronounced kuh-bob or khe-bab)

(1) A dish consisting of small pieces of meat, tomatoes, onions, etc, threaded onto skewers and grilled, generally over char-coal (in this classic skewered form also called the shish kebab); the most common short form is ‘bab.

(2) In Australia, a hand-held dish consisting of pieces of meat roasted on an upright skewer mixed with fresh vegetables and sauces and rolled up in a round piece of unleavened bread; vegetarian kebabs are also sold.

(3) To roast in the style of a kebab.

(4) In slang, to stab or skewer (something or someone).

(5) In Indian English use, roast meat.

(6) Colloquially and metonymically, as “the kebab”, a shop or restaurant which sells kebabs (although the technically incorrect genitive singular form kebaba is used in some places).

(7) In chemistry, the outward growing portions of a shish kebab structure.

(8) In slang as an offensive, ethnic slur, a person of Middle Eastern, or North African descent (applied by appearance and usually with the implication the subject is a Muslim and, in Germany, Turkish).

(9) In vulgar slang (mostly working-class UK), the vulva.

(10) In computing, as kebab menu (also called the three (vertical) dots menu), a convention in the design of graphical user interfaces which appears as an icon used to open a menu with additional options, often for configuration or utility purposes.  The icon most often appears at the top-right or (less commonly) the top-left of the screen or window.  It is distinguished form the “meatball menu” which uses three horizontal dots.

1665-1675: From the Arabic كَبَاب‎ (kabāb) (roast or fried meat), ultimately from the Proto-Semitic kabab- (to burn, to roast).  The word entered English under the Raj, via Urdu, Persian, Hindi and the Turkish kebap and the spellings found around the world include kabob kebob cabob kabaab, kabob, kebap, kabab & kebob.  The use of kebab as an ethnic slur directed at Muslims has, in the phrase “remove kebab” become a staple of the alt-right, great-replacement conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and other malcontents.  It became well-known in the mid-1990s because of the phonetic association with the Serbian Nationalist song of ethnic cleansing, Караџићу, води Србе своје (romanized as Karadžiću, vodi Srbe svoje which translates as “Karadžić, Lead Your Serbs)), a reference to the Bosnian Serb political leader Dr Radovan Karadžić (b 1945), once known (and even celebrated) for his poetry and now serving a life sentence for crimes against humanity.  Kebab is a noun (used usually in the plural) & verb, kebabbing & kebabbed are verbs; the noun plural is kebabs.

Noted kebabs

Some linguistically contradictory but delicious vegetarian shish kebabs.

The classic shish kebab was made by skewering (vaguely cuboid) chunks of grilled meat.  Associated with many Mediterranean cuisines, it’s essentially the same dish as the shashlik and khorovats, found in the Caucasus.  Traditionally, reflecting the geographical origin, shish kebab were made with lamb but have also long been made with various kinds of meat, poultry, or fish.  In Türkiye, shish kebabs are accompanied by vegetables but these grilled separately and sit on their own skewer (or sometimes on a side-plate).  In the barbaric West, the meat and vegetable chunks are usually on the same skewer and this sometimes includes pineapple, something said to appall the Turks.  Shish was from the Turkish şiş (skewer), from the Ottoman Turkish شیش‎ (şiş) (swollen) and related to the verb şişmek, cognate with Old Turkic šïš.

A plate of chapli kebabs.

The chapli kebab (چپلي کباب in Pashto) was a Pashtun-style minced-meat dish, made usually with ground beef, mutton, lamb or chicken, spiced and formed into the shape of a patty.  The origins of the dish lie in the old North-West Frontier of the Raj (the area around Peshawar, capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in modern-day northern Pakistan).  The cuisine, adapted with local variations and dietary rules, is popular throughout South Asia and West Asia and food critics note that the further it is from Peshawar, the more complex and elaborate are the alterations and additions compared to the simple original.  Chapli Kababs can be served and eaten hot with naan or as a bun kebab.  Chapli is thought to be from the Pashto word chaprikh, chapdikh & chapleet (flat), thus the use for the kebab with a light, round and flattened texture.  A more amusing theory suggests the dish is named after the chappal (sandals), the implication being one’s meal looks as if it has been flattened by a man wearing a sandal.  It’s fine folklore but humorless etymologists prefer to think of Chapli as a shortened version of chapleet.

Mural of Lindsay Lohan in hijab (al-amira) with kebab roll by an unknown street artist (graffitist), Melbourne, Australia (left) and the photograph artist used as template (right).

In multi-cultural Australia, the kebab roll has become a fixture in the fast-food scene with variations extending from vegan to pure meat, the term “kebab” something of a generic meaning what the vendor decides it means.  Cross-culturally the kebab roll fills a particular niche as the standard 3 am snack enjoyed by those leaving night clubs, a place and time at which appetites are heightened.  After midnight, many kebab rolls are sold by street vendors from mobile carts and those in the Middle East will not be surprised to learn barbaric Australians sometimes add pineapple to their roll.  The photograph of Ms Lohan in hijab was taken during a “doorstop” (an informal press conference) after her visit in October 2016 to Gaziantep (known to locals as Antep), a city in the Republic of Türkiye’s south-eastern Anatolia Region.  The purpose of the visit was to meet with Syrian refugees being housed in Gaziantep’s Nizip district and the floral hijab was a gift from one of the residents who presumably assisted with the placement because there’s an art to a well-worn al-amira.

Doner kebab in the Berlin style.

The doner kebab is a certain type of kebab, made with meat cooked on a vertical rotisserie which is almost always in public view.  Seasoned meat stacked in the shape of an inverted cone is turned slowly on the rotisserie, the heat coming from vertical cooking elements immediately adjacent.  To prepare a doner kebab, the operator uses a knife to slice thin shavings from the cooked, outer layer of the rotating meat.  This method of cooking, invented in the Ottoman Empire in the mid-1800s has been adopted in many countries.  In Australia, a kebab is a hand-held dish consisting of pieces of meat roasted on an upright skewer mixed with fresh vegetables and sauces and rolled up in a round piece of unleavened bread; vegan & vegetarian kebabs are also sold.  The modern sandwich variant of döner kebab was first seen in the 1960s in shops in West Berlin operated by Turkish immigrants and quickly became popular to the point where it is now an accepted part of German cuisine and often ordered in the short form “doner”.  The noun, verb & adjective döner was from the Ottoman Turkish دونر‎ (döner) (to turn round; spinning; to rotate), from dönmek (to turn).

Stew & Casserole

Stew (pronounced stoo or styoo)

(1) A preparation usually of meat, fish, or other food cooked by stewing, especially a mixture of meat and vegetables (recipes exist for vegetarian & vegan stews).

(2) In informal use, a state of agitation, uneasiness, or worry.

(3) A term for a brothel; a whorehouse (archaic), in the collective “the stews” was a neighborhood in which there were many brothels (the red light district).

(4) A cooking vessel for boiling or stewing (obsolete since the early eighteenth century); a cauldron; still seen as a modifier (stew pot).

(5) To cook food by simmering or slow boiling; to undergo cooking by simmering or slow boiling.

(6) In informal use, to fret, worry, or fuss, often in the phrases “in a stew” or “to stew over” (synonyms include agitation, confusion, dither, flap).

(7) In informal use, to feel uncomfortable due to a hot, humid, stuffy atmosphere, as in a closed room; to swelter.

(8) A fishpond or fish-tank (often as stew-pond); (mostly archaic UK use with origins in Sussex).

(9) An artificial oyster bed (in US regional use).

In the preparation of tea, to cause the tea to become bitter by infusing or drawing for too long

(10) As a general descriptor, a mix (usually of heterogeneous objects, substances, people etc).

(11) In slang (commercial flight crew, cruise ship crews, military mess staff), a clipping of steward or stewardess.

(12) A public room for hot steam baths (obsolete).

Circa 1300:  From the Middle English stew, stue, stewen & stuwen (to take a sweat bath) and stuen (to take a very hot bath), from the Anglo-Norman estouve, from the Old & Middle French estuver (étuve in modern French), a verbal derivative of estuve (sweat room of a bath) (thought related to the Medieval Latin stupha, of uncertain origin), from the unattested Vulgar Latin extūfāre (evaporate), the construct being ex- (out of; from) + the unattested tūfus (vapour), from the Ancient Greek τῦφος (tûphos) (smoke, steam), from τύφω (túphō) (to smoke).  It was cognate with the Italian stufare, the Spanish estufar and the Portuguese estufar.  In the Old English there was stuf-bæþ (a hot-air bath, vapor bath).  Stew in the sense of fish tanks was from the Old French estui, from estoier (to shut up, confine), ultimately from the Latin studium (study).  Stew is a noun & verb, stewable is an adjective, stewed is a verb & adjective and stewing is a noun.  The noun plural is stews.

The intransitive use dates from the 1590s while the meaning "to boil slowly, to cook meat by simmering it in liquid" came into use in the early fifteenth century.  The meaning "to be left to the consequences of one's actions" is from 1650s, especially in figurative expression “to stew in one's own juices”.   The use of stewed to suggest a state of drunkenness dates from 1737.  As a noun dating from circa 1300, a stew was first a "vessel for cooking" from the verb while the meal (stewed meat with vegetables) wasn’t so described until 1756 and the coordinate terms (which emerged or were over the centuries borrowed) included brew, simmer, hash, jumble, medley, mishmash, potpourri, pottage, pot pie, stroganoff, salmagundi, casserole, hotpot (also hot-pot), hot-dish, cassoulet, goulash & ragout.  Modifiers are common (beef stew, chicken stew, Irish stew, cowboy stew, son-of-a-bitch stew, son-of-a-gun stew, hillbilly stew etc, army stew, prison stew etc).  Stews are probably among the oldest prepared & combined dishes cooked by man, the original cooking vessels including animal skulls and turtle shells.

The apparently curious use to refer to brothels dates from the mid-fourteenth century (often in the plural as stews and whole districts could be describes as “the stews” if thought to contain many brothels or be the haunt of prostitutes.  It was a carry-over of the earlier use of stew (from the Old French estuve "bath, bath house; bawdy house) to refer to a bath house (a heated room designed for public bathing) and the parallel reflected the apparently not undeserved reputation of medieval bath houses.  In late fourteenth century Middle English, Ionete-of-the-steues (Janet of the Stews) was common slang for a prostitute.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Nazi head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) was Austrian and must have liked stew-favored idioms.  When he heard the British government had provided a security guarantee to Poland, he became enraged and shouted "I'll cook them a stew (einen Eintopf kochen) they'll choke on!"

Casserole (pronounced kas-uh-rohl)

(1) A baking dish of glass, earthenware etc, often with a cover and sometimes used also as a serving dish.

(2) Any food, usually a mixture, cooked in such a dish.

(3) To bake or cook (food) in a casserole.

(4) A small (metal, glass, carbon fibre or ceramic) dish with a handle, used in chemical laboratories.

1706: From the sixteenth century French casserole (ladle-like pan), the construct being casse (small saucepan; pan for dripping) (from the Old Provençal cassa (large spoon), akin to the Medieval Latin cattia (pan, dipper; crucible) (influenced by the Provençal caça but the ultimate source may be the ancient Greek kyathion or kuathion, a diminutive of kuathos (cup for the wine bowl) + -role (the diminutive suffix)).  Similar (and related formations include cassole (without the -er-) and casseron (using the diminutive suffix -eron, from -on).    The Middle French was casserolle.  Casserole is a noun and verb, casseroled is an adjective and casseroling a verb; the noun plural is casseroles.

The word exists in many European languages including Danish (kasserolle), German (Kasserolle), Norwegian Bokmål (kasserolle), Norwegian Nynorsk (kasserolle) & Russian (кастрю́ля (kastrjúlja)).  The word for centuries described only the cooking vessel but by the late nineteenth century (some sources say explicitly 1889 but it’s likely the oral use pre-dates this) it was applied also of the dishes cooked in one, under the influence of chefs’ jargon such as en casserole & à la casserole.  As need be, modifiers are added (tuna casserole, chicken casserole, vegetarian casserole etc).  In situations where confusion might arise, it’s recommended the meals be called “casseroles” and the cooking vessels “casserole pans”.

Lindsay Lohan cooking marshmallowed yams in casserole dish, Thanksgiving, 2013.

Stews and casseroles are frequently indistinguishable (although by tradition stews have a thicker gravy), especially when served although there are techniques in cooling which allow as chef to produce a casserole with a crusty surface whereas a stew tends to be wholly amorphous.  Both are slow-cooked, one-pot dishes, the difference being that stews are cooked on a stovetop while casseroles are oven-baked.  Chefs insist a casserole should be baked uncovered in the oven but many leave the lid on and the differences can make a difference in that in an oven, heat circulates all around whereas on a stovetop it’s applied only from the bottom.  For this reason stews are usually cooked in pots made from earthenware, cast-iron or some other material with high heat-retention properties; this will tend to equalize the temperature and when cooking a stew, it should be covered from the point when the liquid is added onto the solid ingredients and left to simmer for a few hours until the gravy thickens.  For a stew, chefs recommend frying the meat to the point of crustiness before adding other ingredients and, although the view is not universal, many suggest that if adding onions (an essential ingredient for many), they too should be pre-cooked.  With casseroles, meat may need to be pre-cooked depending on the cut.

Chickpea & Aubergine Stew

Preparation time: 15 minutes (plus overnight soaking).

Cooking time: 8-10 hours.

Serves: 4-6.

Dig out the slow cooker to make this healthy stew. Topped with toasted pine nuts and served with flatbreads, it makes a wonderfully nutritious vegan meal

Ingredients

200g dried chickpeas, soaked overnight

2 tablespoons of extra virgin olive oil (plus extra to serve (to taste)

2 onions, finely sliced

6 garlic cloves, crushed

1 tablespoon baharat

1 teaspoon ground cinnamon

1 small bunch of flat-leaf parsley, stalks finely chopped, leaves roughly chopped (to serve)

3 medium aubergines (eggplant), sliced into 20 mm (¾ inch) rounds

2 x 400g cans chopped tomatoes

1 lemon, juiced

50g pine nuts, toasted (to serve)

Selection of pitta breads or flatbreads, to serve (optional)

Method

(1) Drain the chickpeas and bring to the boil in a pan of salted water. Cook for 10 minutes, then drain.

(2) Heat oil in a frying pan over a medium heat and fry the onions for 10 mins, or until beginning to soften.  Stir in the garlic, baharat and cinnamon and cook for 1 minute. Tip the onion mixture into a slow cooker and add the chickpeas, parsley stalks, aubergines (eggplant), tomatoes and 2 cups of water. Season to taste.

(3) Cover and cook on high for 2 hours, then turn the heat to low and cook for 6-8 hrs more until the mixture has reduced slightly and the chickpeas and aubergines are really ten

(4) Stir in lemon juice, then scatter the pine nuts and parsley leaves.  Drizzle with olive oil and serve with pitta breads or flatbreads.

Puffery

Puffery (pronounced puhf-uh-ree)

(1) Undue or exaggerated praise; inflated laudation; publicity, claims in advertising, acclaim etc, that are exaggerated (also known as the “puff piece”).

(2) In common law jurisdictions (often as “mere puffery), certain claims or assertions made which, even if literally untrue or misleading, are not actionable.

(3) An act of puffing (rare except in humor).

1730–1735: The construct was puff (in the sense of “to praise with exaggeration”) + -ery.  The noun puff was from the early thirteenth century Middle English puf, puffe, puff & puf, from the Old English pyf (a short, quick blast of wind, act of puffing) which was imitative and cognate with the Middle Low German puf & pof.  It was derived from the verb which was from the Middle English puffen, from the Old English pyffan & puffian (to breathe out, blow with the mouth) and similar forms in other European languages included the Dutch puffen, the German Low German puffen, the German puffen, the Danish puffe and the Swedish puffa.  The sense of “to blow with quick, intermittent blasts” was common by the mid-fourteenth century while the meaning “pant, breathe hard and fast” emerged some decades later.  It was used of the “fluffy light pastry" from the late fourteenth century while the “small pad of a downy or flossy texture for applying powder to skin or hair” was first so described in the 1650s.

The meaning “to fill, inflate, or expand with breath or air” dates from the 1530s while the intransitive sense (in reference to small swellings & round protuberances) was noted by 1725.  The transitive figurative sense of “exalt” was known by the 1530s which shifted somewhat by the early eighteenth century into the meaning “praise with self-interest, give undue or servile praise to”, the idea by mid century focused on the figurative sense of “empty or vain boast”, this sense soon extended to mean “flattery & inflated praise”.  The derogatory use of poof for “an effeminate man; a male homosexual” was noted from the 1850s and is presumably from puff (possibly in the sense of “powder puff”, an allusion to the stereotype of their “excessive concern with maintaining a delicate appearance”)) and the extended form “poofter” was early twentieth century Australian slang, an unusual linguistic departure for a dialect which tended either to clip or add a trailing “e”, “y” or “o” sound to words.  The correct spelling for the furniture piece (A low cushioned seat with no back; a padded foot-stool) was pouf, from the French pouf & pouff (again of imitative origin) but, presumably because of confusion caused by the pronunciation, the spellings puff & poof sometimes are used.  The suffix -ery was from the Middle English -erie, from the Anglo-Norman and Old French -erie, a suffix forming abstract nouns.  The suffix first occurs in loan words from the Old French into the Middle English, but became productive in English by the sixteenth century, sometimes as a proper combination of -er with “y” (as in bakery or brewery) but also as a single suffix (such as slavery or machinery).  Puffery is a noun; the noun plural is pufferies.  Lawyers can probably get a feeling for what is "pufferyish" without being "puffery as defined" but probably don't use the non-standard adjective.

Mere puffery

The origin of “puffery” in the publishing industry is thought to be the character of Mr Puff, the verbose and bogus critic in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s (1751-1816) The Critic (1779).  Puffery was the class of “criticism” used as a tool by literary cliques (comprising groups of authors who praised each other’s works) and this excessive lauding was referred to also as a “blow up” (ie the notion of puffing into a balloon, inflating something which although becoming bigger, remains essentially “empty’).  In the jargon of publishing, a puff (or puff piece) is the equivalent of a “blurb”.  In law, the concept of “mere puffery” was created to provide a buffer between the “meaningless” sales pitch and the deceptive or misleading claims which amount to a misrepresentation.  A misrepresentation may be actionable; “mere puffery” is not.  Puffery is used to describe a claim that (1) a “reasonable person” would not take seriously or (2) is so vague or subjective that it can be neither proved nor disproved.  Those two definitions operate in conjunction because even if an assertion can be disproved, if it would be absurd for the “reasonable person” to claim they believed it, it will be held to be “mere puffery”.

Doubling down: Disappointed at losing the case based on their £100 offer, to restore public confidence, they offered £200. 

In contract law, the term “puffery” comes from one of the most celebrated cases in English jurisprudence: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, EWCA Civ 1) before the Court of Appeal.  During the deadly influenza pandemic in the northern winter of 1889-1890, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company it would pay £100 (equivalent to some £14,000 in 2023) to anyone who became ill with influenza after using their smoke ball in accordance with the instructions enclosed with the product.  Mrs Carlill was concerned enough by the flu to buy a ball which, following the instructions, she used thrice daily for some weeks but nevertheless, caught the flu.  Unable to persuade the company to pay her £100, Mrs Carlill brought an action, in court claiming a contract existed which the company denied.  At first instance, despite being represented by a future prime-minister, (Henry Asquith QC (1852–1928; UK prime minister 1908-1916)) the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company lost, a verdict upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal.  It was a landmark in the development of contract law, refining the long-established principles of (1) offer, (2) acceptance, (3) certainty of terms and (4) payment although it would be decades before the implications would begin comprehensively to be realized in legislation.  Not only did Mrs Carlill secure her £100 but she survived the pandemic, living to the age of ninety-six.  On 10 March 1942, she died after contracting influenza.

So, Mrs Carlill, having used the smoke ball three times a day for almost two months before she developed influenza sued for breach of contract and the court held the offer made in the advertisement was not “mere puff” but constituted a valid offer of contract; the Smoke Ball Company’s offer was thus a misrepresentation because, in the particular circumstances detailed, a “reasonable person” would be likely to believe that they would receive £100 and thus, relying on the claim, be persuaded to purchase the product.  However, all the circumstances must be considered on a case-by-case basis and an individual’s simple reliance on a claim they sincerely believe to be true is not sufficient to for something to be held a misrepresentation.

Something will be regarded as "mere puffery" if obviously a "joke line", even if it could be disproved with enough research and analysis.

In the famous Red Bull lawsuit in 2013, the court noted the company’s advertising slogan “Red Bull gives you wings” was “mere puffery” in that no reasonable person would believe ingesting even many cans of the stuff would mean they would “grow wings and fly” (although there are other consequences which can follow high consumption) but the lawsuit claimed that implicit in the slogan was the allegedly deceptive and fraudulent suggestion that the drink was a “superior source of energy”, something not backed up by scientific evidence.  heard before US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the class action was lodged by someone who had been drinking Red Bull for a decade-odd.  His claim was not that he expected feathers to sprout but that idea drinking Red Bull would increase performance and concentration (as advertised on the company's television, on-line and marketing campaigns) was “deceptive and fraudulent and is therefore actionable”.  The scientific basis for the action was research which found energy drinks gained their “boost” through caffeine alone, not guarana or any other ingredient, adding although there was no academic support for the claim Red Bull provides “any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee”, the defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of “energy” and thus worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine.  Red Bull, while denying any wrongdoing or liability and maintaining its “marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate”, the company settled the lawsuit “to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation”.  As part of the settlement, anyone resident of the US who claimed to have purchased a can of Red Bull at some time after 1 January 2002 was eligible to receive either a $US10 reimbursement or two free Red Bull products with a retail value of approximately $US15, a webpage created to enable those affected to lodge their claim.  To avoid any similar claims, the company “voluntarily updated its marketing materials and product labeling".

Advertising is often a mix of puffery and specific claims which can be actionable, depending on the circumstances, either in damages or restitution.

So every case is decided on its merits.  A case before the Federal Court in Australia in 2017 held that a false assertion an app had “the most property listings in Sydney” was a misrepresentation because uncontested evidence proved otherwise although the court note were the app to claim it was “the best” app of its kind that would be mere puffery because, in that context, the phrase “the best” means nothing in particular because it’s not something which can be reduced to a metric or precisely defined.  More intriguing for those who like to speculate when grey turns black or white was the Pepsi Points Case which was in many ways similar to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.  PepsiCo’s advertising included a point system which customers could use to redeem prizes and one campaign had offered a military jet fighter (then invoiced by the manufacturers at US$23 million odd) in exchange for 7 million "Pepsi Points" (then worth US$700,000).  Mailing a $700,000 cheque to PepsiCo, a customer asked to collect his jet.  The court held the offer was “mere puffery” on the basis of (1) aspects of the campaign which clearing indicated “its jocular nature”, (2) that no reasonable person would believe a US$23 million jet could be obtained by exchanging US$700,000 and it was (3) anyway impossible for the company to deliver a military fighter jet in operable condition to a civilian customer.  It was an interesting case because it might have been decided differently if the object had been closer in value to the points mentioned and been something there was no legal impediment to supplying (such as a US$1 million car).  Were it a US$143 million car (there is one such used car), the promotion would presumably still be judged puffery but at some point, it must be that the relative values would be close enough to for the “reasonable person” test to apply.  That however is something impossible to reduce to an equation and each case will be decided on its merits.  Just to be sure, PepsiCo bumped up by several orders of magnitude the points required to start one’s own air force and added some text to make it clear the whole thing was just a joke.

In the matter of Tyrrell’s Crinkly Crisps.  Often packaging & advertising will contain a number of claims, some of which will be mere puffery (even if it’s easy to prove blatantly they’re untrue) while others need to be verifiable:

2 Pack: Not puffery; every pack must contain two packets.  There have been instances when customers have complained they’ve received more than was advertised and paid for but it’s rare.  Usually, such things are treated as “windfalls”.

Vegan: Not puffery; the contents must be vegan (as defined in the regulation of whatever jurisdiction in which they’re sold).

Triple Cooked: Probably puffery because it’s doubtful the term has any legal definition although were it possible to prove the production process is essentially the same as for any other crisp (chip), it might be actionable.  Because “triple” does have a defined value, were it proved the goods were cooked only twice as long as the practice of other manufacturers, that would presumably compel a change of text to “Double Cooked”.

More Crunch: Probably puffery because the measure of such things is so subjective and there is a point at which to increase crunchiness becomes self-defeating because other desired qualities will be lost.

Crinkly Crisps: Not puffery; the crisps must to some extent be crinkly although it might be fun to have a judge explore the margins and tell us how slight a corrugation can be while still being called “crinkly”.

No Artificial Nasties: Not puffery; these packets probably contain artificial ingredients because they’re almost impossible to avoid in the industrial production of food.  What constitutes a “nasty” is however a thing of quantity as well as quality; something millions every day harmlessly (even beneficially) can be a toxic “nasty” in large quantities so what’s included in the packet will be safe as supplied.  If potential “nasties” are found to exist in a quantity above a certain point, it’s actionable.

Gluten Free: Not puffery; unless there is an allowable quantity (ie trace amounts) permitted by regulation, there must be no gluten.

Sea Salt & Vinegar: Not puffery; sea salt is a particular type of salt so it must be used and there must be evidence of the use of vinegar.

165 g Net: Not puffery; each pack must contain 165 g of edible content +/- the small % of production line variation a court would deem acceptable.

Content guide (fat, energy etc): Not puffery; again, what’s claimed must be a reliable indication of the products within whatever small variation is acceptable.

Photograph with giant crisp: Puffery and an example of how the “reasonable person” test works in conjunction with an objective test of truth.  The packs do not contain crisps as large as is represented in the image (indeed, such would be too big even to fit in the packet) and no reasonable person would believe this is what they’re buying.

Smith's Double Crunch Chips, now available in Hot & Spicy Chicken Wings, Ultimate BBQ Ribs, Original and Cheesy Garlic Bread.

The advertising for Smith's Double Crunch was a handy case-study in the way courts treat the words and phrases used in “mere puffery” in a different way from when they appear as warranties, guarantees, contractual clauses an such; in that, it’s an example of one of the exceptions to use usual convention in common law jurisdictions of following the “Vagliano rule”.  The rule was established by the House of Lords in Bank of England v Vagliano Bros (1891) AC 107 and although technically a principle in statutory interpretation, it has influenced other areas in law; it holds that when interpreting a statute, courts should start by considering the natural meaning of the words in the statute itself, without referring to previous case law or historical background, unless the language is ambiguous.  The rule is of such significance because it prioritizes the literal and ordinary meaning of words over any interpretation which could be derived if other factors are allowed to intrude.  In his judgment, Lord Herschell (Farrer Herschell, 1837–1899; Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain 1886 & 1892-1895) wrote: “I think the proper course is, in the first instance, to examine the language of the statute and to ask what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by any considerations derived from the previous state of the law, and not to start with inquiring how the law previously stood, and then, having ascertained that, to see whether the statute will bear an interpretation which is in accordance with it. If the statute is clear, its provisions must prevail, whatever the previous law may have been. If the statute is ambiguous, then, and only then, may the history of the law be referred to.”

Smith's Double Crunch Chips, Flamin' Hot flavor.

The “Flamin' Hot” claim would be “read down” as being understood by any “reasonable person” as being a piece of puffery suggesting “spicy” and nobody would open the packet expecting to find flaming chips inside (indeed, that would demand very different text on the packaging).  The Flaming Hot flavour is no longer on sale.

Obviously, the strictures of the Vagliano rule can’t be applied to what genuinely is “mere puffery” and courts need to decide which words & phrases “at the margins” should be subject to the usual rigor (and treated thus as conveying their “natural meaning”) as opposed to those which may be accepted as just the way things are done in advertising.  The advertising may be deconstructed thus:

While the company may claim their Double Crunch Chips are “irresistible”, it’d not be required to remove the assertion even it was proved an individual (or thousands of them) indeed could resist the inclination to eat the product.  It would however have to be truthful in the claim to being “gluten-free” and manufactured with “no artificial flavours” and “no artificial colours”.  In saying they’re a “deep ridged chip” it would be necessary for a court to determine only that ridges exist and they’re not obviously “less deeply ridged” than other comparable products.  The manufacturer is not claiming the ridges are the “deepest” or even “deeper than most”, just that they are “deep”.  Of course the core claim for a product called Double Crunch Chip was that it delivers “twice the crunch”.  While it might be possible to quantify the quality of “crunch” (in terms of audio volume or sensation), no court would require the findings to suggest “twice the audible volume” and the experience of biting a chip is so individually variable as the make the use of the term to vague to be of use in this context.  The same would apply to the “big, bold flavour you love”, the first element being impossible to define and the latter a classic piece of puffery.