Yes, they might think that’s what they’re doing. But I personally don’t believe they will realize any such benefit. And I don’t believe that the non-dairy industry will suffer harm. In the end, this will amount to nothing more than a routine labeling matter. So I don’t think anyone need be worried about it, no matter how it turns out.
This is just colorless margarine rearing it’s stupid head again. The complaints about market confusion are coming from the dairy industry, not consumers. Consumers know what they’re getting, and nobody is suffering from non-dairy beverage driven malnutrition (except perhaps dairy industry bank accounts). It’s a dairy industry driven change.
While I ultimately agree with @Acsenray that this is ultimately a non-issue, the ‘why’ behind the change is exactly why the FDA shouldn’t be doing it. The FDA shouldn’t be the marketing arm of any part of the food industry, ever.
No, it isn’t ridiculous. There may not be a need for gatekeeping on this particular word, but it’s entirely appropriate for there to be regulations against deceptive food labeling, as @Acsenray noted.
Hi. I’m a consumer and I see a potential problem. As for “nobody is suffering from non-dairy beverage driven malnutrition”.
From the CDC:
“In the United States, approximately 72% of calcium intakes come from dairy products and foods with added dairy ingredients”
“Net absorption of dietary calcium is as high as 60% in infants and young children, who need substantial amounts to build bone, but it decreases to about 25% in adulthood and continues to decline with age”
Those excerpts aren’t any sort of slam dunk evidence, but they’re better than your absolutist “nobody” and “consumers know what they’re getting” assertions.
I’ve known smart people who didn’t realize that nut milks were often nearly devoid of protein and calcium.
I appreciate that it’s possible for someone to have malnutrition due to using non-dairy beverages.
Before the government entertains changing the rules to “fix” a problem, I require the government to show that there is, in fact, an actual problem that needs to be fixed. Not that it is technically possible for there to be a problem, but that the indicated problem exists in the real world we’re living in right now, in sufficient numbers to require a Federal response.
None of that exists for this milk thing. I’d be happy with “over the last decade there has been a 5% increase in hypocalcemia diagnoses for children 5-11”. We don’t have that, because the complainers don’t care about trends in children’s health, they care trends in milk purchases. That’s the problem they’re trying to fix.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the FDA’s own regulations set forth standards and requirements for how the FDA may exercise its authority.
If you are really interested in how the FDA will develop its policy and justify its decision, you can look them up. Many actions by federal regulatory agencies require full disclosure of its rule making process in the Federal Register. Regulatory agencies are routinely required to justify their actions.
If this is the type of regulatory action that the law requires public notice-and-comment procedures for, you can participate yourself at https://www.regulations.gov/.
Various repsonses:
Cow’s milk is poor in vitamin C but it does have a tiny bit; perhaps enough to keep you from dying of scurvy if that’s all you eat. Goat milk is better in this respect and has long been considered the preferable substitute for human milk anyway.
“Cheese” originally meant a pressed-together mass of something. Hence you have “head cheese” made of all the little bits of pork taken off the hog’s head. The dairy product is a “cheese” of milk curds, which you can see if you break a brick of cheese apart, it’ll part along the boundaries of the curds.
At one point the makers of commercial confections wanted to be able to market a concoction of cocoa and hydrogenated vegetable oil as “chocolate”, but the food purists screamed too loudly. Hence “chocolate-flavored” or “chocolaty”.
Given all the stories I heard when I was growing up about George Washington Carver, I’m surprised that of all the vegetable milk substitutes sold one we don’t see is peanut milk. ETA: it’s out there, but nowhere near as common.
I think it’s the other way around. Cheese as cheese came first, and things that resembled cheese started being called cheese.
Like other milks, nutmilks are emulsions, so maybe we should all go with that. Emulsion of Almond. Emulsion of Oat. Emulsion of Cow. Problem solved.
To start with, the FDCA establishes the FDA’s general authority over defining terms for sale of food products:
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, Chapter 9, Subchapter IV: U.S.C. Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
§341. Definitions and standards for food
Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, he shall promulgate regulations fixing and establishing for any food, under its common or usual name so far as practicable, a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a reasonable standard of quality, or reasonable standards of fill of container. … In prescribing a definition and standard of identity for any food or class of food in which optional ingredients are permitted, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of promoting honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, designate the optional ingredients which shall be named on the label. …
§343. Misbranded food
A food shall be deemed to be misbranded—
(a) False or misleading label
If (1) its labeling is false or misleading in any particular, or (2) in the case of a food to which section 350 of this title applies, its advertising is false or misleading in a material respect or its labeling is in violation of section 350(b)(2) of this title.
(b) Offer for sale under another name
If it is offered for sale under the name of another food.
(c) Imitation of another food
If it is an imitation of another food, unless its label bears, in type of uniform size and prominence, the word “imitation” and, immediately thereafter, the name of the food imitated.
(d) Misleading container
If its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.
(e) Package form
If in package form unless it bears a label containing (1) the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and (2) an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count, except that under clause (2) of this paragraph reasonable variations shall be permitted, and exemptions as to small packages shall be established, by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(f) Prominence of information on label
If any word, statement, or other information required by or under authority of this chapter to appear on the label or labeling is not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices, in the labeling) and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.
(g) Representation as to definition and standard of identity
If it purports to be or is represented as a food for which a definition and standard of identity has been prescribed by regulations as provided by section 341 of this title, unless (1) it conforms to such definition and standard, and (2) its label bears the name of the food specified in the definition and standard, and, insofar as may be required by such regulations, the common names of optional ingredients (other than spices, flavoring, and coloring) present in such food. …
Then the FDA itself fills in the details for specific regulations itself. You can start with the FDA’s own Rules and Regulations website: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/fda-rules-and-regulations
The rules and regulations the FDA has already promulgated are in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations: CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21
Parts 101 and 102 specifically deal with food labeling: CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21
In this specific situation, the FDA issued a Request for Information regarding the matter in 2018: Federal Register :: Use of the Names of Dairy Foods in the Labeling of Plant-Based Products
The FDA invited public comments on the matter and even extended the comment period: Regulations.gov
The FDA has received more than 14,000 comments on the matter and under the APA, before it makes its final ruling, it must take those comments into account, as well as other evidence before it. The FDA will, indeed, have to produce a detailed justification to be published in the Federal Register before making any such final rule effective.
So, yeah, if you really are interested in studying the FDA’s justification for whatever it decides regarding the use of the term “milk,” that information will be available to you. So, if what you are interested in is reasonable justification for a regulation, you will have that. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the conclusions they reach would be something you agree with, but the law does require that the FDA not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Of course deceptive labelling would be bad, but a lot of the pushback that’s happening to non-animal-based foods is claiming that it’s against deceptive labelling, when it’s nothing of the sort. It’s pretty much the same mentality that demanded margarine be dyed an unappetising colour - people arguing that vegan sausages should be called ‘plant pulp cylinders’, not because there is any risk of mistaken identity, but because they are threatened by the competition.
Product names are not, guaranteed to be, and should not be required to be scientific descriptions of the product. That’s what the ingredients panel is for.
I (in Michigan) have no problem finding soy milk.
Claims that the almond industry is environmentally friendly don’t hold up well.
“Commercial almond production in California requires diverting ground and surface waters from the state’s aqueduct system for irrigation. As cited in an article in the New York Times, it takes approximately 15 gallons of water to produce just 16 almonds, making almonds one of the most water-intensive crops in the state. Critics of almond milk’s status as a healthy alternative say that there aren’t enough nutritional benefits to justify the gallons of water necessary to grow almonds.”
"According to Forbes, “23,000 acres of natural lands have been converted to almond farms. 16,000 of those acres were land previously classified as wetlands. Additionally, some agricultural land has been converted from lower-water crops to almonds.”
“The ground in the San Joaquin Valley, where most almonds are grown, is already sinking each year due to groundwater depletion, so additional wells farmers are building to irrigate new orchards may have devastating long-term impacts for California and its residents who rely on groundwater as a source for drinking water.”
“This problem is compounded by pesticide use in the production of commercial almonds, which has been known to contaminate already limited water sources and contribute to the toxification of drinking water for people in California’s farming communities. According to the Pesticide Action Network, the USDA Pesticide Data Program has found residues of nine different pesticides on almonds, five of which are toxic to honey bees, posing yet another threat to the environment.”
What IS the most environmentally non intrusive milk? The healthiest?
My Senator (Booker) doesn’t seem to share your confidence in the FDA.
It’s not a matter of confidence. They are required by law to justify their regulations. So, they will do so. If they fail to do that, the regulations will be subject to judicial review. That’s how regulation works. They are not, however, required to reach the same conclusion as Senator Booker. If they fail in their obligation then he can challenge that. Or even propose legislation to overrule the FDA. However, that won’t likely happen unless the FDA is seen to have failed after the fact. The whole point of the regulatory system is that you let the subject-matter experts have the first say.
I think almonds are not the most environmentally friendly, but from what I understand, they are better than dairy cows.
Oat appears to be best and most available of the plant-based options, according to this article:
A little bit of skepticism is warranted here. Government agencies are always being pulled in different directions, and asked to use their discretionary powers to benefit favored groups, it’s not unusual or illegal, but it is something they shouldn’t do.
I agree with this. An industry lobby group, like the milk people, exist to do these things:
- Help the government/regulators implement stuff that is favorable to that industry.
- Help the government/regulators avoid stuff that is unfavorable to that industry.
- Oppose in public, anyone that says anything that could be construed as negative toward that industry (e.g. Oprah’s “beef” with the Texas cattle people and the mad cow scare).
As I said, they are required by law to set forth their evidence and reasoning in detail, so they will do that. Until they do that, there is nothing to evaluate. Speculating that they might fail their legal duty is just playing politics, no different from anyone else.
The underlying assumption here seems to be that there is an unambiguously correct conclusion in this case. If that’s what you believe, then what do you propose happen here? That the FDA not engage in its regulatory duty? That it just skip ahead to the end and just agree with you? That will in itself be a failure of the FDA’s legal obligations, and, really, be evidence that they are being arbitrary and capricious in execution of their authority.