5 ms·
Not who you’re replying to, but yes, because “alternative milks” like almond milk, oat milk, etc. do not contain (dairy) milk. Dairy farmers raised this objecti
by dcrazy 2y ago
Not who you’re replying to, but yes, because “alternative milks” like almond milk, oat milk, etc. do not contain (dairy) milk. Dairy farmers raised this objection and (temporarily?) forced producers of milk alternatives to stop using the standalone word “milk” on their packaging, but I still see it as part of a compound word on packaging.
Thus “chocolate milk” and “strawberry milk” mean milk mixed with chocolate or strawberries, while “oatmilk” and “almondmilk” may contain no milk at all. Though I’m not sure whether a product that mixed almond flavoring into dairy milk could be labeled “almond milk”.
People with dairy allergies shouldn’t be relying on the presence or absence of a space to determine if a product is safe for consumption.
- hollandheese 2y agoShouldn't the others carry a label "does not contain milk" rather than putting "contains milk" on regular milk?
- simoncion 2y agoNo. Your rule explodes into "Label every vaguely-relevant allergen your food does not contain.". Not only is that a rule that's inevitably going to miss something in the long run, it's WAY more complicated than the "Label the allergens your food does contain." rule.
- hollandheese 2y agoNo. That's utterly ridiculous. Milk is already a listed ingredient of milk and butter. It does not need an extra label. Also, if a product claims to be Milk and it isn't, that fact should be stated to stop confusion.
- simoncion 2y ago> Also, if a product claims to be Milk and it isn't, that fact should be stated to stop confusion. Centuries of past labeling disagree with you here. Non-dairy "milks" have been called "milk" for ages. That's going to be impractical to change. > Milk is already a listed ingredient of milk and butter. It does not need an extra label. "Explicitly and separately listing allergen classes of a food product in addition to listing specific allergenic ingredients in the ingredients list." is the entire practice most of the folks in these threads are talking about. If you disagree that that practice has any value, then we are not going to have much of anything to agree on.
- 8note 2y agoShould broccoli be labeled "does not contain milk" ?
- hollandheese 2y agoShould broccoli be labeled "contains broccoli"? No, that's fairly obvious. Also, broccoli doesn't claim to be milk. So, it doesn't need that label.
- crazygringo 2y agoBut isn't it incredibly clear when you're buying cow milk, vs. alternative "milks"? I can understand how people with a dairy allergy might want to double-check an alternative milk to make sure it doesn't contain any real milk, or was processed in a bottling facility that also processes dairy milk, or something like that... But it's hard for me to see how people with a dairy allergy might want to double-check the regular milk...?
- xboxnolifes 2y agoI don't think we should be relying on the good 'ol "it's common sense" approach for allergies when complying is so simple.
- dwaite 2y agoThen how about alternatives like Lactaid? Animal-free dairy milk? As someone else said, is what makes people happy here making the regulations more complex with special cases - when someone not knowing those special cases could potentially kill them?
- spondylosaurus 2y agoLactose-free cow milk is a perfect edge case, because something like that is safe if you're lactose intolerant, but not if you have a dairy allergy. So the fine print really does matter.
- Ferret7446 2y agoThis is why there are proposals to ban labeling such "fake" milks as milk. It's not just the fact that these things aren't milk, but they are also nutritionally and culinarily very different.