Even in places where they have to use the actual ingredients, there’s a lot of tricks to making it look different in photos. That burger might only be partially cooked to reduce shrinkage, then the burger and bun are frozen so they hold shape for the photo. Vegetables carefully picked out and arranged, tomato/pickles blotted dry, and the sauce applied with an eye dropper to provide visual balance after the rest of the burger is stacked.

I will say from my experience, that tends to apply to advertising photography for large franchises. If we’re taking about food photography associated with a high profile event or restaurant where food is actually served, there’s minimal difference between the photo plate and what’s actually served. Sometimes the photo plate is just one picked out while producing the ones being served, sometimes it’s the first/last plate and a person takes a minute to pick out the best looking of ingredients from the same container that was used to serve the rest. Sometimes it’s just an extra minute arranging the plate nicely compared to the last 150 that were done quickly to keep up with service. Often the photographer then gets to eat the plate they’ve just photographed.

Plus pets, home/vehicle ownership, commute times, etc… Lots of things that some people have/choose to commit a significant amount of time. Sometimes it’s also not about the total time commitment, but the windows of time available. Things like kids/pets can make it difficult for games that assume you’re actually going to be continuously attentive over 20+ minutes at a time when you can be interrupted by breaking up a fight with the pets, having to let the new puppy outside regularly, hearing the cat about to hack up a hairball, cleaning up the ice cream the kid just dropped, etc…

I think it’s important to look at the broader scope of affirmative action policies on a case by case basis. One the one hand sometimes it’s just random chance. In theory any given workplace should represent the local demographics, but if you get too granular(workplace, department, specific job title, etc.) then it can become impossible to represent everybody, or just one or two employees can skew the whole demographic.

Where they are a good idea is when you have a group that’s been marginalized over generations that often leads to standards with inherent bias. We could say that college admissions based solely on grades are fair, but that assumes that the process of achieving those grades was fair. In reality, you get situations where people of generational wealth have better access to educational resources, and people from communities that aren’t marginalized find it easier to get higher paying jobs which lets them live in higher income areas with more well funded schools.

That said, there are some inherent biases that are more difficult to overcome. Women are generally less physically capable than men, native English speakers will always have an advantage in some fields over people who have English as a second language. There’s a fine line between unreasonably lowering standards to support minority groups, and taking steps to overcome unfair biases present in those standards.

FWIW, my employer runs a Starbucks location and they put up both Pride decorations and put together a feature drink.

I guess it’s a start, but from the pictures I’ve seen, it looks more like a mechanically separated chicken product than good whole muscle meat. Maybe okay for applications that involve a lot of processing like a breaded and fried thing, or stews/curries where it’s going to be cooked for an extended time with a lot of added flavour. This is a long way from replicating something like a grilled chicken breast.