Soy Milk vs. E.U. Law: Who’s Really Harmed by Labeling Bans?
Written by Caroline Beret, Content Specialist at Animal Charity Evaluators.
As the supply of alternatives for animal products grows, so does the number of labeling bans. Right now it’s simultaneously legal in the U.K. and illegal in Australia to market plant-based ice-cream as ice-cream. French authorities have tried to ban terms like “vegan bacon” and “vegetarian mince.” Germany allows “tofu sausage,” but deems “tofu salami” problematic. In the United States, Missouri has passed a new law banning the label “meat” for meat alternatives, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced similar plans for milk products.
These food labeling regulations mean that companies that offer dairy and meat alternatives can no longer use a large number of gastronomic terms without risking lawsuits or penalty fees. This, in turn, could make it harder for consumers to find vegan products when transitioning away from meat- and dairy-centric diets.
Most labeling bans are driven by the dairy and meat industry and are designed to target alternatives to their conventional products. It’s alarming to watch powerful farming associations pressure and influence authorities worldwide. In fact, there is already a large region affected by one of the bans: In the E.U., terms like “milk,” “cheese,” and “yogurt” have been reserved for products made from cow’s milk since 2017.
As animal advocates, how should we handle these labeling bans? How big of a setback are they to our work in reducing farmed animal suffering? As someone from an E.U. country where certain labeling bans have been in place for a while, I would like to share the effects that the ruling has had on animal product alternatives and demonstrate why labeling bans haven’t had the impact that dairy industry lobbyists had wished for.
E.U. regulations and dairy industry lobbying
The first piece of good news about food labeling requirements in the E.U. is that they are anything but straightforward: The ban affecting dairy alternatives includes 130 exceptions spread over 15 languages and going far beyond the terms you would expect (such as “coconut milk” or “nut butter”). This is due to a clause that allows non-dairy products to continue using “traditionally used” terms.
For example, it is still allowed to use the term “almond milk” in Spain, Italy, and France and the term “Milchmargarine” (milk margarine) is still permitted in Germany and Austria. The list of English exceptions contains 20 items including: “cream filled biscuits [and] sweets or chocolates” and “‘cream …’ or ‘milk …’ used in the description of a spirituous beverage.” Interestingly there are also exceptions for brand names such as “cream soda,” “cream crackers,” and “butter puffs.”
While these exceptions further emphasize that plant-based companies are being targeted, the list also gives reason for hope. Considering that language has always been used creatively when it comes to food, it seems rather difficult to only target new vegan food companies without affecting more established industries like alcohol and snack producers.
It is to be expected that companies that have the means will challenge the bans that affect them. In fact, the vegan food company Tofurky is already working alongside the Good Food Institute, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri to sue the state of Missouri for the labeling restrictions that have been placed on meat alternatives. If lawmakers can foresee these legal complications, they might be discouraged from approving future bans.
The clause allowing exceptions can be considered a legal loophole — something that I expect to occur more in future labeling bans. For instance, as alternative products become more prevalent, they will be more likely to be categorized as “traditional” and to be listed as exceptions.
New labels and marketing strategies for plant-based foods
The 2017 ruling in the E.U. was the result of a lawsuit against TofuTown, a company that used names like “tofu butter” and “veggie cheese” for its vegan products. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) based its decision on the claim that non-veg*n consumers needed to be protected from misleading labels. But has it become more difficult for consumers to find plant-based products?
In this case, I mostly speak from the experience of grocery shopping in Germany: It is still relatively easy to identify plant-based milks, yogurts, and cheeses because their packages resemble their animal-based counterparts, and they tend to display descriptive pictures or images. In fact, I have met long-term veg*ns who are unaware of the fact that their favorite soy milk companies don’t use the word “milk” on their products.
Companies have come up with a variety of alternatives names such as “Soja-Drink” for soy-milk, “Genießerscheiben” (“connoisseur slices”) for vegan cheese, “Lughurt” for lupine yogurt, and “Hafer cuisine” for oat-based cream. One plant-based company has even started to popularize their brand name “Wilmersburger” in the fashion of conventional cheeses like “Gouda” and “Gorgonzola.”
While I disagree with the ban, I do welcome the creativity it inspires. As the above examples and names like “Impossible Burger” and “Seaweed Pearls” (vegan caviar sold by IKEA) show, there are many companies that successfully market alternative products without using conventional terms.
Using the actual terms might not even be as important as we think. According to recent studies, consumers react more positively to names that focus on origin, flavor, and appearance than those that highlight the health benefits and plant-based nature of a dish. In one canteen, the consumption of “lentil stew” went up by 70 percent after it was renamed “Moroccan Spiced Lentil Stew and Tempeh Tangine.”
So, while meat and dairy lobbyists are busy working on legal barriers, the inventors of “connoisseur slices” might already be onto something that will not only dodge those barriers but also outperform the meat and dairy industry’s marketing strategies.
Good publicity for soy milk and bad publicity for cow’s milk
The lawsuit against TofuTown and resulting E.U. ruling were widely reported. While the ban could have strengthened the image of the dairy industry, it had the opposite effect: Non-veg*ns, as well as veg*ns, reacted with incredulity and mocking. The court behind the ban was criticized for its obvious support of lobbying, for falsely portraying consumers as confused, and for trying to interfere with the intuitive use of language.
Plant-based alternatives received a heightened amount of publicity. Media outlets reporting about the ban mentioned soy milk, nut cheeses, and other vegan products, creating a greater awareness of them.
Most importantly, the ban has not successfully changed the way we refer to plant-based products. Soy milk is still called soy milk. If the ban managed to create a linguistic shift, it was thankfully in the opposite direction: It gave animal advocates a new term for cow’s milk.
In its ruling, the ECJ had to come up with a clear definition of “milk” in more than twenty languages and the German term turned out to be no less than a disservice to the dairy industry. While the English definition “mammary secretion” already doesn’t sound tasty, the German definition “Eutersekret” (“secretion from an udder”) qualifies as downright off-putting. It was promptly picked up by the media and is still in use among animal advocates today.
“Eutersekret” is comparable in it’s bluntness to the ruling in Missouri that reserves the term “meat” for products derived from “any edible portion of livestock or poultry carcass or part thereof.” The wider public rarely gets to hear such stark but precise definitions of animal products, which is something I regard as another silver lining of the ruling.
Planning for the future
All things considered, we shouldn’t let labeling bans intimidate us in our advocacy. Almost two years have passed and the ban has not curbed the popularity of dairy alternatives in the E.U. In fact, sales of dairy alternatives have increased and are expected to continue to grow. Nonetheless, we can expect more lawsuits and bans in other countries and for other products.
Here are my suggestions for how to deal with them: 1) follow and inspect labeling bans closely and understand what they legally mean, 2) think outside of the box when it comes to marketing animal product alternatives, and 3) use lawsuits to further raise awareness about animal farming and to promote the variety of cruelty-free alternatives that already exist.
