Dairy dictionary under fire: farmers call for stronger labelling following UK decision on plant-based milk

Following a UK court decision confirming plant-based products cannot be called “milk”, “butter” or “yoghurt”, Australian Dairy Farmers says the country is “out of step” and should do the same. The UK ruling banned Swedish-based drink manufacturer Oatly from using the term “milk” in its products, namely the trademark “Post Milk Generation”, stating manufacturers of plant-based products cannot use dairy terms in ways that mislead consumers about the nature of their products. Oatly has been battling Dairy UK over the trademark since 2021, with the decision reinforcing longstanding protections across the UK, the European Union and the US that reserve terms such as “milk”, “butter”, and “yoghurt” for animal-derived products. Non-dairy products can only use the term “milk”, for example, if they are describing a specific characteristic of the product, such as “milk-free”. Dairy UK chief executive Judith Byran said the ruling would bring “greater certainty for businesses and helps ensure that long-established dairy terms continue to carry clear meaning for consumers”. The decision has caught the attention of Australian Dairy Farmers, which would like Australia to follow suit. As a major dairy exporter, Australian dairy farmers fear not protecting dairy terms domestically weakens the standing of Australian dairy in global markets where those words are legally protected. Instead of clear mandatory regulation, the Australian Government has endorsed the development of a voluntary code of practice to be drafted and led by the Alternative Proteins Council. ADF president Ben Bennett said you could not ask an industry that “profits from using dairy language to write the rules about how dairy language should be used — they are clearly conflicted”. He said when consumers picked up a product labelled “milk”, “it should come from a cow — not a marketing department”. “We accept those rules in international trade negotiations yet refuse to apply them at home. That undermines our farmers and our credibility. “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,” Mr Bennett said. “This is why the rest of the world protects dairy words, because they mean something.” Mr Bennett raised concerns over the Government’s $1.5 million spend on the local labelling review, led by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which paid Food Standards Australia New Zealand to conduct a consumer survey. That process concluded there was limited consumer confusion, a finding Mr Bennett said ADF disputed He said industry did not get the opportunity to provide input over key questions posed to consumers in the review. “Reporting was shifted in ways through drafting that downplayed earlier findings indicating confusion about nutritional content,” Mr Bennett said. “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?” “The world recognises that dairy words have meaning. Australia should too.” Ian Noakes, president of WA Dairy Farmers, agrees with ADF, and wants “truth in labelling laws strengthened”. “We always want that for dairy products using incorrect labels,” Mr Noakes said.