By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Oatly cannot use the word “milk” in its marketing slogans, such as “Post Milk Generation.” This decision upholds regulations that reserve terms like “milk” for products derived from the dairy sector. The ruling provides clarity for the dairy industry, ensuring that traditional terms retain their meaning for consumers, while also impacting how plant-based alternatives can be branded and marketed. This judgment could lead to similar challenges for Oatly and other plant-based producers in other European countries.
Read the original article here
The recent ruling in the UK, that Oatly is no longer permitted to use the word “milk” in its marketing for plant-based products, has certainly stirred up a lot of conversation. It’s a decision that has left many scratching their heads, pondering the very definition of “milk” and whether our understanding of it is so fragile that a simple word change can cause such a stir. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision against Oatly’s slogan “Post Milk Generation” has essentially drawn a line in the sand, dictating a stricter definition for what can be labeled as “milk.”
This legal pronouncement begs the question: if it’s not a “milk alternative,” then what is it? The common sense answer, for many, is that these products are indeed alternatives to traditional dairy milk. The advice offered by legal experts suggests that plant-based producers should opt for more descriptive terms like “oat drink” or “plant-based drink.” While this offers a clear path forward legally, it doesn’t quite satisfy the intuitive understanding many have of these beverages.
The notion that “beer” or “wine” could also be classified as “plant-based drinks” highlights the broadness of that category, and the fact that juices also fit this description further fuels the argument that “oat milk” is a perfectly descriptive term that doesn’t inherently cause brand confusion. For a considerable period, perhaps even centuries, terms like “almond milk” have been used and understood without issue. The idea that consumers would be utterly confused by “oat milk” seems to suggest a rather low opinion of public comprehension, particularly when compared to historical practices, like the use of almond milk during religious fasting periods by medieval populations who clearly understood the distinction.
The dairy industry’s stance seems to suggest a fear of consumer confusion, yet many argue that the very purpose of these plant-based alternatives is to explicitly *not* be dairy milk. Therefore, it would be counterproductive to their business model to actively mislead consumers into thinking their products are derived from animals. The historical usage of terms like “milk” for non-animal products, stretching back a thousand years, is a significant point. It seems to contradict the notion that the word is exclusively tied to animal mammary glands, especially when considering the inconsistency in labeling – why is cow’s milk simply “milk” in the UK, while goat’s milk requires specific labeling? This selective application of the “everyone knows what we mean” argument appears to be a point of contention.
It’s hard to ignore the perception that this focus on the word “milk” is a distraction from more pressing issues. When significant legal and governmental resources are channeled into disputes over plant-based labeling, it raises questions about societal priorities. The argument that consumers are likely to be confused by “oat milk” seems to overlook the fact that the product’s very existence is predicated on being a non-dairy alternative. If someone is confused by “oat milk,” it’s a fair question to ask about their overall capacity to navigate everyday choices.
The existence of terms like “milk chocolate,” which doesn’t necessarily contain actual milk in the way the EU defines it, also raises questions about the strictness and consistency of labeling regulations. If “milk chocolate” can be a term used for a confection, why can’t “oat milk” be used for a beverage that clearly states its origin is oats? The core issue, for many observers, revolves around the intent to mislead. The marketing of plant-based alternatives, by and large, appears to be transparent about their origins.
The historical precedent for using “milk” to describe plant-based beverages is a strong counterpoint to the current ruling. The assertion that consumers would be visualized milking oats, as one commentator humorously put it, underscores the perceived absurdity of the concern. If we are to be strict with definitions, then perhaps we should also question terms like “milk of magnesia,” which has no animal origin. The comparison to “peanut butter” also provides a useful analogy; we don’t question calling it “butter” even though peanuts don’t have mammary glands.
Interestingly, some regions, like Mexico, have implemented regulations that restrict the term “milk” to products derived from lactating mammals. This led to a popular product, “Nutrileche,” being rebranded as “Nutri.” While this addresses a perceived need for clarity in some markets, the situation in the UK feels different to many, especially given the long-standing use of “milk” for plant-based alternatives. The idea that consumers will simply adapt to new terminology is also a possibility, though it might not negate the initial frustration.
Ultimately, the debate around Oatly and the word “milk” highlights a broader cultural and economic tension. It pits traditional industries against emerging ones, and it prompts us to re-examine our language and its definitions in the face of innovation. While the legal ruling has been made, the public discourse suggests that the conversation about what constitutes “milk” is far from over. The resilience of terms like “oat milk” in everyday language, despite legal pronouncements, points to the power of common usage and consumer understanding.