New rules on “dairy descriptors” are anti-consumer and inconsistent | Comment and opinion

I never thought I would be someone who uttered the phrase “bureaucracy gone mad.” But that’s where I find myself. Frustrated and, yes, angry, at new guidelines proposed by the Food Standards and Information Focus Group (FSIFG), which could impose even tighter restrictions on plant-based food and beverage companies using certain terms related to dairy products in their brand image and communication. on the products.

Apparently calling something “not milk” or “a milk alternative” could mislead Brits into thinking it’s actually… milk.

Dairy UK, the so-called “voice of the dairy industry”, has been campaigning for stricter guidelines for plant-based products since at least 2017. Years later, we see the end game. A cynical attempt to harm plant-based competitors and make it harder to find alternatives to dairy – while one in ten people in the UK suffer from lactose intolerance, more common among certain ethnic groups.

The proposed new rules – which could come into force within weeks – would make the UK a strange international outlier, with a tougher stance than the EU or US.

The UK is one of the most competitive markets for herbal products. Forty-eight percent of UK adults now use plant-based milk alternatives in their diet. This is not a niche category.

There is no evidence that the status quo is confusing consumers. A 2020 study by Cornell University found that consumers “are not more likely to think that plant-based products come from an animal if the product name incorporates words traditionally associated with the original products.” animal than if this is not the case.

An independent survey of 2,000 British adults that we commissioned last month found that more people believe the moon landings were faked than dairy descriptors do.

This guidance is also contrary to the UK’s legally binding commitment to a net zero target. The UK government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) is clear that reaching net zero will require a significant change in consumer behavior, saying the government must “implement policies to encourage consumers to adopt healthier diets, including… a 20% reduction in all meat by 2030, rising to 35% by 2050, and a 20% reduction in dairy by 2030.”

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that in no other industry are misleading claims about consumer confusion used to hinder “alternative” competitors.

If the condescending logic used by dairy lobbyists were applied to other industries, surely non-alcoholic “beer” should not be called beer, fake “fur” should not refer to fur, and “cars” » electrics should be banned, otherwise consumers will be confused.

You can laugh, but when faced with unwavering opposition to a logical and reasonable argument, you must point out the inherent absurdity. Especially in lieu of any effort to consult with businesses or consumers on a version of the guidance that might be fit for purpose.

The plant-based food sector is a success story in Britain: more than 100 plant-based food startups are headquartered in Britain, attracting millions of pounds of investment. Some will be the major employers of tomorrow. We should support these entrepreneurs, not limit them to fallacious arguments about confusing consumers at the very moment they are establishing their brand.

There is plenty of space for “milk” and “milk alternatives” to coexist and provide choice for consumers.