UK court ruling should call time on for Aussie dairy imitators
Source: DairyNews.today
Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) has renewed its call for strong, enforceable rules on the use of dairy terms after a United Kingdom (UK) court confirmed plant-based products cannot be called “milk”, “butter” or “yoghurt”.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled that manufacturers of plant-based products cannot use dairy terms in ways that mislead consumers about the nature of their products.
Australian experience shows marketers of plant-based products often try to imitate dairy staples. These products are formulated to mimic the natural taste of dairy, and while they are often fortified with vitamins and minerals, they are not nutritionally equivalent to dairy products.
The recent decision reinforces long-standing protections across the UK, European Union (EU) and the United States (US) that reserve terms such as milk, butter and yoghurt for animal-derived products.
Yet the Australian Government has just announced it will pursue a voluntary approach to plant-based labelling following its review, rather than enforce clear separation in law.
ADF President Ben Bennett said Australia is increasingly out of step with global standards. “It’s about honesty,” Mr Bennett said. “Words matter. When consumers pick up a product labelled ‘milk’, it should come fr om a cow – not a marketing department.
“Consumers should have the confidence that what they are buying is a dairy product with the natural nutritional profile that comes with dairy, not be misled by artificial alternative products suggesting they have the same nutritional benefit.
“This is why the rest of the world protects dairy words, because they mean something. Here in Australia, we’re allowing these products that are engineered through additives and fortification to imply they offer the same benefits as dairy products.”
Mr Bennett raised concerns around the government’s $1.5 million spend on the local labelling review, led by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), which paid Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to conduct a consumer survey.
That process concluded there was limited consumer confusion. ADF strongly disputes that conclusion. The survey did not ask meaningful questions about nutritional equivalency claims. It focused on front-of-pack labelling and failed to test whether consumers understand the nutritional differences between dairy and highly engineered plant-based imitations.
“Industry did not have an opportunity to provide input over key questions posed to consumers in the review,” Mr Bennett said.
“Reporting was shifted in ways through drafting that downplayed earlier findings indicating confusion about nutritional content.
“If you don’t ask the right questions, you won’t get the right answers. Consumers might know the product is made from oats – but do they understand it is not nutritionally the same as milk?”
Instead of clear mandatory regulation, the government endorsed the development of a voluntary code of practice to be drafted and led by the Alternative Proteins Council. ADF says allowing the plant-based industry to draft its own standard on the use of dairy terms is fundamentally flawed.
“Once again this government is allowing the fox to build the hen house,” Mr Bennett said.
“You cannot ask an industry that profits from using dairy language to write the rules about how dairy language should be used – they are clearly conflicted.”
A voluntary code does not prevent misuse. Across the EU, the UK and the US, dairy terms are legally protected. Plant-based products cannot be sold with the terms “milk” or “yoghurt”. They may use descriptors such as “style” or “alternative”, but the core dairy term remains reserved.
“Australia helped write the international Codex standards on what milk is,” Mr Bennett said.
“We accept those rules in international trade negotiations yet refuse to apply them at home. That undermines our farmers and our credibility.”
Australia is a major dairy exporter. Failing to protect dairy terms domestically weakens the standing of Australian dairy in global markets wh ere those words are legally protected. Mr Bennett said ADF was not seeking to remove plant-based products from shelves.
“We’re calling for clear, mandatory rules so that dairy terms are reserved for dairy,” he said.
“The world recognises that dairy words have meaning. Australia should too.”
Australian experience shows marketers of plant-based products often try to imitate dairy staples. These products are formulated to mimic the natural taste of dairy, and while they are often fortified with vitamins and minerals, they are not nutritionally equivalent to dairy products.
The recent decision reinforces long-standing protections across the UK, European Union (EU) and the United States (US) that reserve terms such as milk, butter and yoghurt for animal-derived products.
Yet the Australian Government has just announced it will pursue a voluntary approach to plant-based labelling following its review, rather than enforce clear separation in law.
ADF President Ben Bennett said Australia is increasingly out of step with global standards. “It’s about honesty,” Mr Bennett said. “Words matter. When consumers pick up a product labelled ‘milk’, it should come fr om a cow – not a marketing department.
“Consumers should have the confidence that what they are buying is a dairy product with the natural nutritional profile that comes with dairy, not be misled by artificial alternative products suggesting they have the same nutritional benefit.
“This is why the rest of the world protects dairy words, because they mean something. Here in Australia, we’re allowing these products that are engineered through additives and fortification to imply they offer the same benefits as dairy products.”
Mr Bennett raised concerns around the government’s $1.5 million spend on the local labelling review, led by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), which paid Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to conduct a consumer survey.
That process concluded there was limited consumer confusion. ADF strongly disputes that conclusion. The survey did not ask meaningful questions about nutritional equivalency claims. It focused on front-of-pack labelling and failed to test whether consumers understand the nutritional differences between dairy and highly engineered plant-based imitations.
“Industry did not have an opportunity to provide input over key questions posed to consumers in the review,” Mr Bennett said.
“Reporting was shifted in ways through drafting that downplayed earlier findings indicating confusion about nutritional content.
“If you don’t ask the right questions, you won’t get the right answers. Consumers might know the product is made from oats – but do they understand it is not nutritionally the same as milk?”
Instead of clear mandatory regulation, the government endorsed the development of a voluntary code of practice to be drafted and led by the Alternative Proteins Council. ADF says allowing the plant-based industry to draft its own standard on the use of dairy terms is fundamentally flawed.
“Once again this government is allowing the fox to build the hen house,” Mr Bennett said.
“You cannot ask an industry that profits from using dairy language to write the rules about how dairy language should be used – they are clearly conflicted.”
A voluntary code does not prevent misuse. Across the EU, the UK and the US, dairy terms are legally protected. Plant-based products cannot be sold with the terms “milk” or “yoghurt”. They may use descriptors such as “style” or “alternative”, but the core dairy term remains reserved.
“Australia helped write the international Codex standards on what milk is,” Mr Bennett said.
“We accept those rules in international trade negotiations yet refuse to apply them at home. That undermines our farmers and our credibility.”
Australia is a major dairy exporter. Failing to protect dairy terms domestically weakens the standing of Australian dairy in global markets wh ere those words are legally protected. Mr Bennett said ADF was not seeking to remove plant-based products from shelves.
“We’re calling for clear, mandatory rules so that dairy terms are reserved for dairy,” he said.
“The world recognises that dairy words have meaning. Australia should too.”
