Eh, I agree with the court. I’ll still call it “oat milk” but I don’t think companies should be allowed to sell it as “milk” in any form. I get they have quirky marketing and, IMHO, a great product, but allowing a corporation to use a word like that laissez-faire is pretty dangerous: oat milk isn’t naturally occuring and their product has lots of extra stuff added in (sweeteners, fortifiers, etc), neither of which should be true for a productive called “milk”.
Have the courts come to an actual definition of what (animal) milk actually is? Last I read, neither EU or UK could define it. Milk’s content differs so much from brand to brand and there’s no set standard. Presumably other than it comes from an animal of some kind.
Thank you. That was actually weirdly interesting in terms of the specificity (while also being quite broad). I can’t imagine how many hours and meetings and people were involved in that.
but I don’t think companies should be allowed to sell it as “milk” in any form
Well sure, and they haven’t been able to in almost a decade. This court ruling is about something else. They’re not calling it milk, they’re not mislabelling their product. In fact, the campaign this is about is them saying explicitly this is not milk, and apparently that goes too far. I’m totally with you that food labelling should be clear, but this is not about that. This is not consumer protection. This is anticompetitive agribusiness lobbying, no more, no less.
Eh, I agree with the court. I’ll still call it “oat milk” but I don’t think companies should be allowed to sell it as “milk” in any form. I get they have quirky marketing and, IMHO, a great product, but allowing a corporation to use a word like that laissez-faire is pretty dangerous: oat milk isn’t naturally occuring and their product has lots of extra stuff added in (sweeteners, fortifiers, etc), neither of which should be true for a productive called “milk”.
Have the courts come to an actual definition of what (animal) milk actually is? Last I read, neither EU or UK could define it. Milk’s content differs so much from brand to brand and there’s no set standard. Presumably other than it comes from an animal of some kind.
…defines “Milk” as meaning exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom.
Thank you. That was actually weirdly interesting in terms of the specificity (while also being quite broad). I can’t imagine how many hours and meetings and people were involved in that.
What about coconut milk?
Natural and unadulterated. So, yeah.
yes! we shall stop the capitalists by monitoring their language! this time we’ll get em!
Well sure, and they haven’t been able to in almost a decade. This court ruling is about something else. They’re not calling it milk, they’re not mislabelling their product. In fact, the campaign this is about is them saying explicitly this is not milk, and apparently that goes too far. I’m totally with you that food labelling should be clear, but this is not about that. This is not consumer protection. This is anticompetitive agribusiness lobbying, no more, no less.