US farmers are backing efforts by congressmen and lawmakers to clear up the standards for identifying milk, calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take appropriate action against the makers of products that include almond, rice and soya milks.
American dairy farmers, like their Kiwi counterparts, have taken a hammering with the decline in global milk values, reporting a 40% slide in incomes in the past 18 months.
Nielsen data indicated a 250% increase in sales of plant-based “milk” products in the US while milk sales fell 7% in 2015.
Dairy Companies Association executive director Kimberly Crewther said its members shared the concerns being raised in the US.
“Dairy products are valued globally for their natural origins, nutritional value and functional properties.”
The association shared concerns with other dairy organisations internationally about the creep in the use of dairy terms to label or describe non-milk products, she said.
It was concerned over the use of labelling that was misleading or deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression of the products, including making direct or indirect reference to other products with which the food might be confused.
She pointed to the Codex international food standard for the use of dairy terms, aimed to protect consumers from being misled by the use of dairy terms on non-dairy products.
The strict definition under Codex for milk was the “normal mammary secretion of milking animals obtained from one or more milkings without either addition to it or extraction from it, intended for consumption as liquid milk or for further processing.”
This definition fit with that adopted by the Food Standards Australia-New Zealand.
However, a sub section of the standards enabled a wave of non-dairy “milk” products to slip onto supermarket shelves.
This section of the NZ-Australian standards allowed products that were not a true milk to use the word “milk” as long as the context ensured consumers were not misled to confuse it with true dairy milk.
It required producers to use the full descriptor like “coconut milk” or “almond milk”.
However, the international Codex regulations supplied by the association required only “exceptional permissions” for the use on non-dairy foods, such as peanut butter, coconut milk or cocoa butter.
US regulations had farmers and dairy processors there fuming.
In a written response to Farmers Weekly questions National Milk Producers Federation spokesman Chris Galen said farmers had been stonewalled by FDA for 20 years in efforts to step up enforcement of milk labelling standards.
“These imitators have capitalised on a lax regulatory system to elbow their way into the US market using dairy-friendly terms, imagery and packaging to position themselves as substitutes.
“What people may fail to grasp is the vegetable alternatives are imitation but not an acceptable substitute from a nutritional standpoint.
“That is what has been lost in this debate, the most popular types of plant beverages pale in comparison to real milk in terms of protein content and often many other vitamins and minerals.
“We’re not asking for new laws or regulations, just the acknowledgement that plant-based foods should not be able to create and use new terms such as almond milk, soy cheese and rice yoghurt that are in conflict with existing definitions that clearly define milk as an animal-based substance.”
Crewther said processors’ concern over the proliferating use of the term “milk” had been on the association’s radar for some time.
European milk producers had long challenged the use of “milk” in product descriptors.
In 2010 the European Dairy Association called for the term “soy milk” to be replaced with “soy drink” or “soy beverage”.
The move was labelled by non-profit news organisation Mother Jones as a “transparent ploy” by the dairy sector to hurt the soybean industry, which, at the time, was in a strong growth phase.
The growth in non-dairy milk products was a strong trend in supermarket chillers.
Online shopping monitor Instacart predicted “ditching dairy” to be an ongoing trend for the grocery trade in 2017.
Data indicated a 222% increase in the “non-dairy” category in the past year.
Top brands included NadaMoo ice-cream made from coconut milk and an almond-based, dairy-free brand Kite Hill. Nut-based yoghurts and vegan cheese were on the rise.
Federated Farmers dairy chairman Andrew Hoggard said the issue was also present with non-meat products.
He believed the time was right for NZ producers to work harder at protecting the descriptions of products sourced purely from animal proteins.
“I also find it interesting that despite these products claiming to be better or more beneficial than dairy, they still need to use the term “milk” to describe them.”
‘Milk’ products worry Aussies
Australian dairy and health sector misgivings on the use of the word “milk” are laid out in a Food Standards Australia-New Zealand (FSANZ) report published in late 2015.
Intended to assess the addition of minerals and nutrients to fortify alternative “milk” products, the report also contained submissions on industry and jurisdictional views on the marketing of the products.
The report noted the nut and cereal based beverages were consumed by less than 1% of the population.
In its submission, Dairy Australia called for a re-naming of the products describing a better definition of them being “formulated legume, cereal, nut and seed beverages” with accompanying labelling to support customer understanding.
However, FSANZ’s response was the definition of the products was “for regulatory purposes only” and any additional definition changes were outside the scope of that particular report.
Dairy Australia also expressed concern over the “substantial” variability in the composition of the plant-based products.
It sought minimum standards to ensure they approached nutrient equivalence to dairy products.
But FSANZ maintained the products could be sold fortified or unfortified, to meet consumers’ demands for choice, but a minimum amount of protein for fortified products was set.
Dairy Australia also submitted the substitute products that were not nutritionally equivalent to milk, particularly those with low protein levels, should not be allowed to be fortified.
The South Australian health body Health SA also weighed in, expressing its misgivings over the concern labelling the products “milk” invited inappropriate comparisons between them and dairy milk.
It said given the dissimilar nutrient profiles “these comparisons are not appropriate”.
But FSANZ said because the products were used as dairy substitutes, they should be placed in the same category so accurate comparisons could be made.
Any comparative claim also had to cite the product it was being compared to, for example “compared to light milk”.
FSANZ noted little research was available on how consumers perceived nut- and seed-based beverages.
However, such beverages were reported in recent national nutrition surveys to be consumed in similar quantities and ways to milk.
“Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that consumers perceive nut- and seed-based beverages as a milk substitute similar to soy-based beverages, which are another milk substitute,” the report said.
