A recent ruling might see references to “vegan burgers” and “vegan sausages” disappear from packaging. But will it make a difference? And who really benefits?
“Oat milk” and other plant-based milks have significantly increased in popularity in recent years. A quarter of coffees sold in the UK are now made from plant-based milk (with oat the top choice) and non-dairy milk bought by 35% of households. This means many non-vegan or vegetarian people are choosing it over cow’s milk for their lattes or flat whites. However, many people are probably not aware that when they buy a carton of oat, almond, soy or other plant-based “milks” the packaging does not share the common phrasing that most people use.
In the UK and Europe at least, they will be buying “oat drink” not “oat milk” due to an EU ruling (which the UK has stuck with) banning the use of this because it is “confusing”. This 2013 EU regulation specifically targeted dairy-based designations relating to milk, butter, cheese, yoghurt, etc. It was ruled these terms could only be applied to dairy products as using such phrasing for plant-based alternatives was ruled to be confusing for consumers; with some exceptions. “Coconut milk” and “peanut butter” are allowed, as is vegan or plant-based “ice cream”.
The labelling regulations haven’t settled the issue with battles between producers of animal and plant-based milks and allied groups with confusion actively used as a tactic to promote dairy products. Dairy UK, “the voice of the UK dairy industry”, launched a series of spoof adverts promoting milk and cheese products designed to look like official government press releases. US industry lobby groups produced satirical adverts featuring Hollywood starts Queen Latifah and Aubrey Plaza and written by Saturday Night Live staff. These fake public service announcements suggested dairy consumers were being “milk shamed” and promoted fake products such as “wood milk” to frame plant-milks as ridiculous. Market leader Oatly have leaned into the controversy and launched a “F*ck Oatly” website listing the complaints, campaigns and actions launched against them to help the “thousands of people who hate us—better understand everything that’s “wrong” with our company”.
In October 2025 the European Parliament seems to have taken this a significant step further by voting to ban the use of words traditionally associated with animal products such as “burger”, “steak”, “sausage”, “egg white” and “escalope” for plant-based alternatives. Again, this is ostensibly intended to reduce confusion for consumers. A likely more significant driver behind this possible ruling is to “to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain”.
Large producers of animal products, and lobby groups representing the industry, have promoted animal consumption through funding educational materials for schools, partnering with influencers and funding advertising campaigns such as one targeting Gen Z during Veganuary. Well-funded, industry backed ad-campaigns have targeted “fake” meats to push the idea that plant-based alternatives are “ultra processed”, “synthetic” and therefore unhealthy.
The agri-food industry does not have a good track record of looking out for genuine consumer interests or of improving clarity. Clear nutritional labelling has been regularly opposed or watered down by food lobby groups such as the resistance to the “Nutri-Score” system in Europe. As with the UK’s “traffic light” version, industry has opposed the labelling standard becoming mandatory and lobbied for versions more beneficial to them.
When it is financially beneficial to them the food industry is more likely to sow confusion than reduce it. It is well-established that consumers find labelling such as “no fat” or “no sugar” confusing as they assume this means healthy (due to the “halo” effect). Such labelling obscures an often-worse nutritional profile for such products.
This also begs the question why “oat milk” and “bean burger” are confusing when “coconut milk” and “peanut butter” are not. The 2013 ruling suggested the exemptions were appropriate as those products were well-established and well understood. These are, of course, well known terms, but they weren’t always. Also, ordering an “oat milk” latte is very commonplace today (and use of that term in coffee shops has increased not declined in the last 12 years).
The main difference between the products deemed “confusing” and those which are acceptable is that the permitted ones are probably not considered a threat to the established industries built on animal exploitation. No-one is swapping cow’s milk for coconut milk for their breakfast cereal or dairy butter for peanut butter on their baked potato.
But why does this matter?
It makes little difference to committed and established vegans and vegetarians who are well-versed in the intricacies of food labelling. They also know how to hunt out meat-free products in the supermarket. But it will become harder to present alternatives to animal-based products or to nudge customers into sampling other options.
The scientific evidence is clear that eating less animal products, of all kinds, is essential for improving global public health and tackling climate change. But a much bigger shift of dietary practices is needed than can be achieved by convincing a relatively small proportion to become vegan. Decisions such as these European Parliament ones only make this harder.
People who claim to be confused by food labelling using metaphors or borrowing words from other contexts are going to have a difficult time when “easter eggs” are filling supermarket shelves. This confusion could make for some pretty disappointing breakfast omelettes.
Why is “oat milk” banned but “coconut milk” is fine?
Dec 3, 2025
More Than a Client: Ruby Smith and the Heart of Social Care
Nov 19, 2025
Old wine in new bottles: the NHS 10 year plan for England
Nov 5, 2025
Just saying no? Why declining research participation matters
Oct 22, 2025
Why Workplaces Still Fail Disabled People (and What Needs to Change)
Oct 8, 2025
Why is “oat milk” banned but “coconut milk” is fine?
by Chris Till Dec 3, 2025A recent ruling might see references to “vegan burgers” and “vegan sausages” disappear from packaging. But will it make a difference? And who really benefits?
“Oat milk” and other plant-based milks have significantly increased in popularity in recent years. A quarter of coffees sold in the UK are now made from plant-based milk (with oat the top choice) and non-dairy milk bought by 35% of households. This means many non-vegan or vegetarian people are choosing it over cow’s milk for their lattes or flat whites. However, many people are probably not aware that when they buy a carton of oat, almond, soy or other plant-based “milks” the packaging does not share the common phrasing that most people use.
In the UK and Europe at least, they will be buying “oat drink” not “oat milk” due to an EU ruling (which the UK has stuck with) banning the use of this because it is “confusing”. This 2013 EU regulation specifically targeted dairy-based designations relating to milk, butter, cheese, yoghurt, etc. It was ruled these terms could only be applied to dairy products as using such phrasing for plant-based alternatives was ruled to be confusing for consumers; with some exceptions. “Coconut milk” and “peanut butter” are allowed, as is vegan or plant-based “ice cream”.
The labelling regulations haven’t settled the issue with battles between producers of animal and plant-based milks and allied groups with confusion actively used as a tactic to promote dairy products. Dairy UK, “the voice of the UK dairy industry”, launched a series of spoof adverts promoting milk and cheese products designed to look like official government press releases. US industry lobby groups produced satirical adverts featuring Hollywood starts Queen Latifah and Aubrey Plaza and written by Saturday Night Live staff. These fake public service announcements suggested dairy consumers were being “milk shamed” and promoted fake products such as “wood milk” to frame plant-milks as ridiculous. Market leader Oatly have leaned into the controversy and launched a “F*ck Oatly” website listing the complaints, campaigns and actions launched against them to help the “thousands of people who hate us—better understand everything that’s “wrong” with our company”.
In October 2025 the European Parliament seems to have taken this a significant step further by voting to ban the use of words traditionally associated with animal products such as “burger”, “steak”, “sausage”, “egg white” and “escalope” for plant-based alternatives. Again, this is ostensibly intended to reduce confusion for consumers. A likely more significant driver behind this possible ruling is to “to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain”.
Large producers of animal products, and lobby groups representing the industry, have promoted animal consumption through funding educational materials for schools, partnering with influencers and funding advertising campaigns such as one targeting Gen Z during Veganuary. Well-funded, industry backed ad-campaigns have targeted “fake” meats to push the idea that plant-based alternatives are “ultra processed”, “synthetic” and therefore unhealthy.
The agri-food industry does not have a good track record of looking out for genuine consumer interests or of improving clarity. Clear nutritional labelling has been regularly opposed or watered down by food lobby groups such as the resistance to the “Nutri-Score” system in Europe. As with the UK’s “traffic light” version, industry has opposed the labelling standard becoming mandatory and lobbied for versions more beneficial to them.
When it is financially beneficial to them the food industry is more likely to sow confusion than reduce it. It is well-established that consumers find labelling such as “no fat” or “no sugar” confusing as they assume this means healthy (due to the “halo” effect). Such labelling obscures an often-worse nutritional profile for such products.
This also begs the question why “oat milk” and “bean burger” are confusing when “coconut milk” and “peanut butter” are not. The 2013 ruling suggested the exemptions were appropriate as those products were well-established and well understood. These are, of course, well known terms, but they weren’t always. Also, ordering an “oat milk” latte is very commonplace today (and use of that term in coffee shops has increased not declined in the last 12 years).
The main difference between the products deemed “confusing” and those which are acceptable is that the permitted ones are probably not considered a threat to the established industries built on animal exploitation. No-one is swapping cow’s milk for coconut milk for their breakfast cereal or dairy butter for peanut butter on their baked potato.
But why does this matter?
It makes little difference to committed and established vegans and vegetarians who are well-versed in the intricacies of food labelling. They also know how to hunt out meat-free products in the supermarket. But it will become harder to present alternatives to animal-based products or to nudge customers into sampling other options.
The scientific evidence is clear that eating less animal products, of all kinds, is essential for improving global public health and tackling climate change. But a much bigger shift of dietary practices is needed than can be achieved by convincing a relatively small proportion to become vegan. Decisions such as these European Parliament ones only make this harder.
People who claim to be confused by food labelling using metaphors or borrowing words from other contexts are going to have a difficult time when “easter eggs” are filling supermarket shelves. This confusion could make for some pretty disappointing breakfast omelettes.