37
votes
Oatly loses right to call its drinks ‘milk’ in landmark UK ruling – lexical dispute with trade body Dairy UK argued slogan ‘Post Milk Generation’ was misleading to consumers
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Oatly gets skimmed in court ruling over 'milk' claims
- Published
- Dec 5 2024
- Word count
- 556 words
All this hullabaloo of "milk has to come from animals" is so bizarre to me. The word "milk" has referred to various white cloudy liquids for hundreds of years now. I'm thinking of examples like coconut milk, or milk of magnesia. I don't see why the dairy industry should get exclusive use of a common English word.
Because of money and/or political power. I don't know what the situation is exactly in the UK but the American dairy industry benefits from bonkers subsidies and loads of PR.
I always assumed the reasoning wasn’t sinister. I know the EU is also quite strict about using the word milk, meat and cheese.
It’s about not causing confusion with newly invented naming schemes. The traditional names like cocoa butter and coconut milk are prevalent enough to get an exception.
It’s difficult to regulate clarity in a culinary world full of contradictory traditions where chocolate milk has milk in it but almond milk does not. Peanut butter is another good example of a traditional exception. By comparison margarine is not allowed to be called butter.
Personally, I like this kind of regulation. I’d even welcome reducing advertising on food. Packaging should be distinct between brands, but product information should be presented in a uniform way like we do with nutritional information (and in my opinion the tiny ingredients list should be in huge letters on one side of the package).
Ideally I want to pick up two competing products and with a 5 second glance compare the origin, expiration, ingredients, certification, and nutritional information because it is so clearly labeled instead of hidden as tiny text.
I don't think this regulation adds any clarity, I think it removes it. I know what Oat Milk is, I buy it very frequently. I don't know what Oat Drink is. If I was presented with it outside of this context, I would assume that it was oat milk based, but had been altered in some way to make it more palatable for drinking straight rather than for cooking with or combining with other ingredients. If I walked into the store and couldn't find the Oat MIlk that I usually buy and only saw Oat Drink, I would be confused and frustrated. I'd need to read the ingredients to make sure that I was buying the same thing that I always buy. Even then, I'd be concerned that the proportions of those ingredients might be different. Unless I had a carton of Oat Milk to compare it with, I wouldn't be certain that the Oat Drink was actually the product that I wanted to buy.
Oat milk is also not a newly invented naming scheme. Plant based milks have been referred to as "milk" for hundreds of years. Oat milk specifically is much more recent, but it's still been around for as long as I have. Almond milk could unanachronistically be sold at the Renaissance Festival.
I don't think oat milk is at the stage yet where you know what you are buying. It's not clear at all. The ingredients other than water and oats depends on the brand. In my opinion it is important which oil is used for example.
My point was that you should not have to assume anything. Labels have to be clear, but there are some traditional products where society has chosen a name for a specific protected food preparation. I think in Italy, latte di mandorla is actually a protected traditional agricultural product, so there is a definition and ingredients are controlled. Sure, someone can sell home-made almond milk at the Renaissance Festival, but the risks there are hopefully well understood. People also drink raw milk.
I guess we disagree. I see naming of food products as an important part in knowing what you are getting. I want the label and ingredients to be clear.
As for getting confused by Oat Drink. If things were clearly labeled and ingredients were easy to understand, you could just glance if it is made of water, oat, and the oils, carbonates and phosphates you like.
I dont have that information memorized. I would need an old container of oat milk to compare it to, as I mentioned.
Given a need to look at the ingredients list, which is present regardless, how is "oat drink" more clear about what you're getting than "oat milk"? What does "oat milk" require you to assume that "oat drink" does not?
I think we are talking past each other here. Your point about the ingredients clues me in on something here because this is my point as well in a way. I want it to be clear what a company is selling when a brand calls their product 'Oat whatever' with a clear list of ingredients.
I'm also looking at this from a perspective that is more focused on cooking maybe?
In the EU, milk is a defined ingredient, does not have an ingredients list on the carton and it is enough to list 'milk' itself as an ingredient in derived foods. I think in the US, they actually do include ingredients lists on milk since milk is sometimes pumped with other stuff like calcium (crazy in my opinion).
But using 'milk' in the name could make it seem like it is an equivalent cooking ingredient at first glance and does not require an ingredients list or further scrutiny. Does it boil the same way? Does it make a good crepe? You can't use oat milk like milk in cooking, you have to get a little bit more creative. And you don't get what you see like you do with milk. So it is a different category of food. Unlike milk, it is only a drink.
Regulations do change though. Maybe people will completely understand that 'oat milk' is a universal term for oats+water+'clearly defined additives' that is standardized by the UN or some other organization. It could be considered a universal term like 'coconut milk' is with standards like this: https://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/10401/CXS_240e.pdf
Vitamin enrichment is a pretty straightforward and extremely well-studied process with public health benefits. It's especially helpful in the war on poverty because it means poor families are less likely to have nutrient deficiencies.
I agree with this point, and don’t have a good solution either, but I just wanted to point something out that I think makes for a flaw in that system:
There definitely is variation, usually only some, but sometimes a lot. “Harmless” differences like the amount of fat in the milk definitely still get listed and visibly put onto the packaging. Then there’s some milk with further-out expiration dates which you don’t even have to store cooled.
Meaning: No, I can’t just buy the next best thing labelled “milk” and guarantee it’s a perfect substitute for what I had previously, since there will almost always be differences like that within a given product category.
Edit: My exact point has already been made further along in this thread.
Milk is a thing unto itself with no extra ingredients, fine, but certainly there are other processed foods that refer to a defined ingredient in their name but also include other ingredients, right? I'm thinking of something like orange juice. Is it possible to sell chocolate milk labled as chocolate milk?
As I've mentioned in other comments, I'm skeptical that this is causing anyone any kind of confusion. I'm also still skeptical that this adds any kind of clarity. Lots of products have ingredients lists. Is there any reason to believe that people don't expect oat milk to have varying ingredients?
Nut milks have existed (and been called as such) for hundreds of years yet the US dairy industry has been lobbying to take their names away. Their intent is absolutely sinister and they cannot be trusted.
… would not have come into place and popular use had these regulations existed back in the day already.
Meaning, really it’s some sort of hen-and-egg problem: How do you reach the inflection point of a phrase being sufficiently known such that consumers aren’t getting confused, while use of that term is literally outlawed? Better yet, who decides on when it’s “ready” and popular enough to consult lawmakers – is a dictionary’s ranking sufficient to determine everyday use and understanding? Or a company, or worse lobbyists?
In that last sentence I alluded to (part of) what makes it so complex IMO: Not everyday use is the deciding factor, but being understood. If there were some fictional alternative word for oat milk that most everyone knew, it wouldn’t matter if you chose to consume it personally, whether not at all or exclusively – just knowing what it is is the point.
Another example for this: If I went to the store today and bought something labeled “vegan salami”, could I be blamed for not knowing the word “vegan” in the 2020s? Or thinking it somehow contained meat regardless of the presence of that phrase? Presumably, yeah, that’d be my fault. So why is it not allowed to use the original commonly-understood term (milk, meat, etc.) if you additionally mandated something like e.g. both the main product word and the “vegan” (or plant-it’s-based-on) prefix to be of the same size font and visibility for the general design on the packaging?
Again, at least I personally get the feeling that just disallowing based on an arbitrary “it’s not well-known enough” just… doesn’t work well in practice, and is intended to maintain the status quo as much as possible. And I’m saying that as an omnivore (who also doesn’t have anything against oat, soy, tofu, etc. alternatives).
This is just a patently absurd thing to say when "back in the day" is the 14th century.
Honestly, while I get the point, I still politely disagree. My statement holds true regardless of the timeframe we’re talking about, since the issue is fundamentally timeless. Any new word for food or produce could have this “issue” happen to it. (Side note: Now I’m imagining the hilarity of modern-world laws in medieval times.)
And then we’re still circling back: Does language and meaning never change, ever; when it used to in the past, just because now there’s laws against it?
Human language will continue to change as it always has. Actual human language use tends to be very resistant to attempts at top-down legislation (at least when it's aimed at anything less than extermination of a language and culture). I guarantee people will be saying "oat milk" and "almond milk" in the UK regardless of what the law says has to be on the package for decades and perhaps even centuries to come, but inevitably not forever.
The ruling seems insane. The slogan is literally “Post Milk Generation”. The word immediately preceding “milk” implies that the product is not milk. In fact, the slogan only works if the consumer understands that the product is not milk.
It’d be like Chik Fil A’s cow based branding trademarks were strucken because consumer may confuse them for a beef hamburger restaurant.
I don't know why, but "strucken" is hilarious to me.
Considering a lot of people seem to think "postmodernism" means "modernism but more" it might not be that self-evident.
In the US, pressures for these sorts of outcomes come from the cow milk industry. They stand to benefit from the confusion.
We see the same with the meat industry and plant-based meats.
I'm fairly attuned to this sort of BS, as a vegan.
I would be willing to give up calling plant-based milks "milk," but only if we simultaneously end subsidies for beef and dairy. Let's see how the market handles $4 gallons of Almond-based Dairy Alternative vs $12 gallons of Genuine Cow's Milk
The prices would likely decrease as they subsidize to increase the price of milk. The US Gov't buys dairy products at set prices, for things like school lunches, to keep the price of milk higher and dairies literally dump their milk when demand is low (when school is out). So we're maxed out on milk production, the price could only go down until enough dairies go under to lower the supply enough to bring it back up. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/mpsp04.pdf
No worries though, milk from microbes (Imagindairy) will make cow milk a thing of the past in the not so distant future.
Genuinely thank you for your comment – I had no idea about both the milk “subsidies” program and the plausibly maximized production on the supply side; but especially not about microbe-induced “dairy” protein production being something a) that exists and b) is actively being worked on to bring to commercial use whatsoever. Tremendously cool stuff.
The only reason alternative products, any alternative product of any kind, wants to adopt an existing label is familiarity. Marketing in so many words. Sometimes it's just that, sometimes they want to obscure or distract from the actuality of the product.
I wish more places around the world would enforce names and labels more strictly. Especially with things like food. Germany, France too I believe, have some very set laws about labeling and names and so on. I like that. I wish it was more prevalent.
After all, nothing about the ruling here, or similar rulings, says they can't sell the product. Can't sell it for consumption even. It just says they have to label and name it something other than an existing product classification.
Objecting to that basically means you're in favor of wanting confusion. "What kind of milk" questions, in this case. Others I've seen pop up in recent years are "what kind of burger" or "what kind of meat."
Advertisers and marketing people are so convinced they can sell anything? Let them sell these newer products then. That's what they're paid to do right? Make them snappy and catchy and appealing? Familiarize us with them? Go to it then.
Uhm... Various non-dairy milks have been referred to as "milk" since at least the middle ages. Almond milk, as one particularly prominent example, was a ridiculously common ingredient in medieval European cookery (and medicine), including in France!
E.g. Le Ménagier de Paris from 1393 even has a recipe for making "Buvrage de lait d’amandes" (almond milk drink) as well as several other recipes that require "lait d’amandes" as an ingredient.
The only "confusion" here is the one being entirely invented by the modern dairy industry in order to benefit from forcibly reversing a linguistic trend that was already well established several hundred years ago.
Almond milk, for example, has been common and called milk for hundreds of years. Why would they have to stop calling it milk now? This ruling is ridiculous protectionism, and has nothing to do with the safety of a product. Milk also isn’t a brand that needs protecting.
I disagree with your premise - that saying almond milk is "in favor of wanting confusion. But let's look at some British Milk brands and how they label their milk.
We have *Milk Fresh Daily", "All Natural Milk", "British Milk", and "LoveMilk."
None of these are actually specific about what animal they come from, unless British Milk is in fact human milk from British citizens and well, I have no interest in "LoveMilk" if it's descriptive.
If the dairy industry uses marketing on their labels, and obviously they do, and doesn't have to even label which animal the milk comes from - didn't find a one listing cow or cattle - seems more like industry using the courts to fight competition rather than it actually being about customer clarity.
If they're gonna be hypocritical about it, they shouldn't really have a say.
This got a real laugh out of me. Thank you!
I'm just saying! (◔‿◔)
My biggest rhetoric pet peeve right here:
Baselessly asserting that X is 'basically' Y, basically means that you endorse the forceful annexation of Andorra into either France or Spain.
(edit: for future reference, I’m referring to the pre-edit version above the above post) Hey — I’m not an admin or anything, and I too get incensed at rhetoric I find disingenuous, but there are ways to call people out without attacking their character so directly. Worst case scenario, you can also label messages off topic or malicious, if those apply.
I deliberately used a silly example so it wouldn't be taken too seriously... I take it I've missed the mark?
Can’t speak for anyone else, but minimally it read like you’re calling OP a POS. I take it that’s not the intent, but I’m probably just being too sensitive. I’m sure other folks will comment if it matters, but I try to be a bit proactive about this stuff.
(edit) Also to be clear I 100% agree with your thesis and disagree with OP’s. Just sayin’.
Ah what the hell I'll change it to a different absurd example
Is there any evidence that anyone has actually purchased one of these plant milks on accident believing that it was dairy milk? I don't think that's an actual problem happening here. I think it would be far more confusing to the people who go in to buy their oat milk but can suddenly only find oat drink. Is it the same thing they bought last week, or something different? No one thinks oat milk or soy milk has anything to do with cows.
I am 100% on team "these should just be called milk, like they have for the last 1000 years and this dairy overreach is blatantly awful" but yes, people do buy non-dairy milks and expect them to be actual cow milk. They also buy impossible burgers and expect them to be beef. Mostly old people.
Some of the non-dairy milks do try to make themselves look like dairy products as well, which doesn't really help the case.
But at some point it's really the buyer's fault for their carelessness, no? To take your Silk NextMilk example from another comment: the packaging emphasizes three times that the product is dairy-free (twice labeling it "plant-based", once outright stating as much). Heck, even the name "Silk" should evoke some suspicion that it's not a dairy product. Probably the most suggestive aspect of the packaging would be the black and white spotted pattern, imitating those of a cow. But that's not exactly deceptive, is it? In my experience, most milk cartons are plainly presented, not decorated.
I mean, to give a mundane example, I once almost purchased regular chicken nuggets when I had intended to buy the vegan sort; it was only once I was at the check-out line that I realized I grabbed the wrong bag. It's not like there was anything misleading about the meat or the vegan product -- I was just so accustomed to buying the vegan alternative that I zoned out for a minute and forgot the meat kind existed. I wouldn't elevate a moment's forgetfulness into an argument that either product should be renamed (e.g. "MEAT chicken nuggets"?).
Having worked in retail, many people have basically no reading comprehension. They'll read the bold "free delivery" sign and ignore the slightly smaller "with this obvious prerequisite" part underneath.
Whether it's their fault they deliberately chose to blow off education their entire life or politicians' fault for kneecapping the public school system for decades (or those same families' fault for voting for the politicians who did that) is a deeper topic. But we're basically at the point that putting a white liquid in a semi-opaque jug in the vicinity of the dairy section is too much for people, labeling be damned.
I'm generally on board with specificity. People colloquially call Kraft's disgusting rubber "cheese," but legally it's some variation of "cheese food product." There's a difference between legal terms and colloquial ones. I enjoy coconut milk, almond milk, oat milk and actual milk for different purposes, but I'm absolutely for requiring specificity for the sale of a product over giving any credence to the ever-shifting morass of colloquial terminology.
I actually grew up mostly having rice milk and not having milk on hand. I'd describe it more as "pressed rice juice," and oat milk seems to fit that sort of idea as well.
I'm sure it has happened at least once - it's a big world - but is there any reason to think that it's common enough to actually be a problem? And how much of it is down to the buyer being more oblivious than removing the word "milk" would help with? Looking at the NextMilk example from further down the thread, it says "Dairy Free" on top, "Plant based has never tasted so good" and "Plant Milk" with a little leaf on the front corner in pretty big letters. It doesn't seem like any of the actual words on the container mattered, it was just the pattern, so if your dad was a representative sample, not calling it "milk" wouldn't help. No shade to your dad, I've bought the wrong thing before because I wasn't paying attention, but it was on me for not paying attention, it wasn't false advertising.
I imagine it is a lot harder to introduce a new product to compete in an established market when you aren't even allowed to classify it as such.
https://youtu.be/Ird5khsx3Oo
What confusion? Dairy alternatives are always plainly labeled, usually containing pictures of the actual plants they use. I've been more confused about skim vs 1% vs 2% vs whole milk than I've ever been about what plant my drink came from.
I don't know the specific brand (thanks @kacey, I think it was NextMilk) and I'm in Canada, so it might not be available elsewhere, but there was what I believe was oat milk available some time somewhat recently (sorry, since 2020 time has lost all meaning) that was white with black spots on it, similar to a classic cow design. My dad bought it, and then thought it was cow milk that had gone off.
Without a brand name or a picture, or even a sure memory of what plant the milk was made of, or when this happened, how can you expect people to simply believe your comment? I'm not saying you're lying, but I have no reason to believe that this isn't more on your father than it is on the marketing.
Bit of a meta comment, but please try to imagine that being on the receiving end of a horde of people loudly disagreeing with you is very unpleasant. I'm struggling with this myself a lot recently, but being accusatory and blunt tends to prompt equally strong responses in your conversation partner, and two people yelling at each other on the internet just ruins two evenings. If the goal of this thread is genuinely to discuss and understand each other's perspectives, that purpose won't be served by getting super riled up.
First, I should note: I am 100% in favour of non-dairy milks continuing to be called milks, as white cloudy liquids have been for a thousand years, and I think the dairy farmers are completely in the wrong.
However, you claimed that every single dairy alternative was not something you could confuse with dairy milk, and that's just not right. As @kacey pointed out Silk NextMilk, which I'm pretty sure is the one that my dad purchased and found confusing, is clearly black and white like a holstein, though the spots are leaves instead of cow spots. There's also Bored Cow which is marketed with a cow.
I think that the comment to which you originally replied is wildly off-base, in that it almost directly states that calling non-dairy milks "milk" is just for marketing reasons, which is just plain incorrect. As @cfabbro and others pointed out, that's just what they've been called for as long as people have been making them. But I think that stating that no confusion on if these are dairy milk exists is also incorrect. Some companies do market these in a way that they look like dairy milk, and that's all I was saying.
I think if you want to combat the point of the original comment, then there are better ways to do so. Point out that people have been calling almond milk that since at least 1393, for example. Or point out that it's actually kind of more convenient if these things have the same form factors and are relatively interchangeable; that's a feature, not a bug. And that the issue is really that people have bought into dairy propaganda for the last 100 years, and that's why we're in this mess.
There are enough good arguments that you don't have to resort to ones that aren't true.
I'm not trying to argue, but I don't like my words being misunderstood. What I said is that these are always clearly labeled, which NextMilk is. I can't account for someone not reading the label. The only brand I can understand there being any confusion about is Bored Cow, but I would hope that consumers spending $20 on a gallon of milk know that it isn't ordinary cow's milk.
You also said "what confusion"? They were the first words you used. I think it is understandable to think that you are implying that there is no confusion on the matter, but I could immediately provide examples of how there can be confusion on the matter.
This also serves as a response to @psi for this comment and @GenuinelyCrooked for this comment.
The marketing people do account for that, which is the main issue. The ones that I listed are trying to take advantage of the fact that people don't always read everything on the label. That can be for a variety of reasons, and several of them have to do with accessibility.
Which of the following people deserve to be deceived?
Most of the packaging for dairy alternatives are really well done - as you've said, they often show the item from which it is derived, and have multiple contextual clues that the product is a non-dairy product. But some non-dairy milks don't do that - they design the product to look like milk, and then add legally required wording that says "non dairy" - and those kind of suck, because they are trying to be mistaken for dairy milk. Just because the packaging is clear to you that doesn't make it clear.
Obviously none of those people deserve to be deceived. I agree that the packaging should not be designed to be easily confused with cow milk, but none of those people that you listed will be helped by changing the name from "oat milk" to "oat drink". I think the spots were a bad move, deceptive whether they intended it or not, but they're a different issue from using the term "milk".
We are in 100% agreement then, as I think calling any of the non-dairy milks anything other than milk is a terrible move.
Nextmilk was blue and red (for full/half fat) when I saw it.
It also was the most dairy-tasting combo of various plant milks and oil and whatever I've ever had. So of course I can't find it anymore.
This is wrong, it's about vibes. It's the difference like "orange juice" vs "orange drink". The word "milk" has lots of fuzzy warm connotations.
I sure hope not. I like my milk cold and decidedly not fuzzy! And ideally with cookies.
On the topic of milk, am I insane for still enjoying traditional dairy milk? I'm a younger millennial, and it's interesting how many of my peers either don't drink milk anymore, never drank it to begin with, or have completely switched to alternatives. I've tried the most popular alternatives (almond and oat), and they just don't do it for me. I suppose I grew up in a "you can only have water or milk with dinner" type household, so I was predisposed to drinking it all of the time.
Granted, these days I'm not gulping it down like American kids did in the 1960's, but I still enjoy a splash of whole milk in my drip coffee, with chocolate chip cookies, PB&J sandwiches, or in cereal. Most of the time I can barely get through a half-gallon before it spoils, so I try to buy smaller quantity, higher quality (preferably local) milk.
By the numbers most (white, at least) Americans drink milk still, if they’re going to drink milk at all. It’s just overrepresented in the internet and in urban areas. But in terms of overall milk trends, there does seem to be a greater awareness that milk isn’t particularly healthy, at least to your waist.
Personally, as part of the people who lack lactase adaptations, I do not drink milk anymore.
Fwiw, people can become more intolerant (think intestinal issues) of the lactose in milk as they age. Also, and I don’t know anything about your cohort, tolerance of lactose is tied to genes that are historically heavily region-specific. More people might feel comfortable drinking dairy alternatives now that they’re mainstream, and are tossing aside a drink that was … unpleasant to them.
So, there could be medical reasons, but also sociocultural/technological reasons, why it appears that many people are abandoning milk vs in previous eras (but why it’s still totally sane if you still like it).
I became lactose intolerant in my late 20s, and there are so many good options for lactose free dairy and non-dairy alternatives now. Nothing I’ve found is as good as real cheese or kerrygold butter, but most everything else (regular butter, cream cheese, milk, cream) is easy to replace.
Miyoko's "European Style Salted Butter" is the best non-dairy butter I've tried, whipped up into an excellent vegan frosting for a party. I don't know if it's quite on par with Kerrygold on a warm english muffin but worth a try if you haven't.
I just bought some the other day but haven’t had a chance to try it yet! I appreciate the recommendation
I feel ya; I miss cheese so much. My go-to meal, when my brain was too calorie-deprived to think straight, was a cheddar tuna melt. It really hit the spot 😮💨
If you can find a good vegan fromagerie, the results can be great! We made tuna melts with this cheese a while ago, and it was delicious. I say this as a guy that can still eat dairy cheeses - it was pretty comparable! Actually it was better than just a generic block of marble cheese which is our go-to from CostCo.
I wouldn't say insane. I'm sure you're aware milk isn't the most healthy drink (although it's far from the worst) and also that there's an environmental and ethical cost associated with the dairy industry but it's not like you're kicking orphans in the face while burning a pile of old tyres. Also you've tried the non-dairy options - it might be a little crazy to dismiss those things out of hand because "they're not proper milk". But tried and decided they're not for you? That's very sane.
I like non-dairy milks in some situations. Coconut milk makes amazing hot chocolate. Almond milk custard is incredible. Hazelnut milk on cereal is delicious. In the summer, chilled milkshakes with any nut milks are great. I usually have one or other non-dairy options in the fridge, sometimes several.
But that said, a cup of tea made with anything other than dairy milk is undrinkable. So I still buy a little bottle of cow juice once a week for the maybe 60ml a day I need for cups of tea.
I think I'm older than you and most of my peers don't really go near the non-dairy milks, unless they're specifically people with lactose intolerances.
I prefer Oatly with a bowl of cereal (it's also just funny when it's oats swimming in oat milk). A glass of cow's milk tastes off to me now. But for cappuccinos and such there's really nothing better than whole milk, although oatly works pretty well there. It's largely about reducing animal product consumption for me. I still eat a ton of dairy, but I found the ways in which I prefer plant-based products. I also generally don't eat meat.
I'm super lactose intolerant - at least for milk and ice cream.
I'll still eat/drink it but I have to think about it more these days. Mostly down to cereal for milk, and that's more about not wanting other food than preferring cereal. Oat milk isn't great for me with the diabetes, soy and almond taste off, nextmilk disappeared, so I mostly use fair life because it's one of the few lactose free milks that isn't sweet due to the lactose being broken down.
It's still quite normal to like milk. There's lots of reasons not to drink it now though (mostly the sugar/fat content) and I feel like more people have intolerance to it these days.
I'd drink more, but I only get it for a couple weeks because I only go to the store once a month or so.
That actually reminds me that the way milk is sold is actually deceptive, at least here in the US. You can buy reduced fat in products marked “skim”, “1%”, or “2%”. Skim is pretty self-explanatory: it’s where all of the fat has been skimmed off. The percentages are where it gets particularly hairy. You would expect that it means that it only contains 1 or 2 percent of the fat as whole milk, but it’s actually saying that the milk is 1 or 2 percent fat. For comparison whole milk is ~3% fat. To add an extra layer of confusion while milk is often marked as “Vitamin D Milk”, which implies the others do not include vitamin D and are unhealthy in some ways. In more recent years there is ultrafiltered milk on the market which alters the composition of the milk in ways that are not entirely clear to the consumer, and I don’t believe that manufacturers are required to disclose this alteration in any labeling. Maybe in the ingredients list, but nobody is going to read the ingredients list on a simple thing like milk, which should be just one thing: milk.
That is still missing an even more important descriptor - animal.
It's weird to me that that continues to get overlooked!
I don’t particularly care about that. Cow milk is the default for the time being. Much like how flour is presumed to be refined, bleached, enriched wheat flour.
That being said, it is a norm I would like to remove!
If there's an insistence on labeling, it should fully be labeled.
I only really use milk in coffee/lattes or occasionally for cooking, but I actually switched to buying oatly bc the barista edition genuinely foams better than the cow's milk at the store (I don't remember why I initially bought it; curiosity or a vegan friend coming over probably). Here in Germany, oat milk is exclusively sold UHT, which makes it shelf-stable until opened and generally much slower to spoil than non-UHT cow's milk (which I had similar problems with spoiling too fast to use when I was in the US). They sell UHT cow's milk widely here in Germany too (and I never noticed a taste difference from non-UHT milk) so that's not my reason, but I could see it being a motivation for someone in your case, assuming the oat milk isn't sold wildly differently.
I've got no beef (heh) with cow's milk and I don't go out of my way to avoid it -- I still buy other dairy products -- but I never really enjoyed drinking plain milk to begin with and probably wouldn't be improving my health if I drank more chocolate milk.
https://fckoatly.com/
Why did Glebe make you stop? Companies must protect their trademarks or else they can lose them.
I'm not a lawyer (or OP)! I just have a habit of Googling things to find expert opinions whenever people cite "common wisdom" as a source.
Apparently US companies don't have to sue everybody prevent their trademark from becoming diluted or considered genericized! TIL. It's a smidge more subtle than that, but this never had to go to courts ...
Except apparently Oatly is a Sweden based company, and they sued Glebe farms in the UK! (also TIL) This legal firm blog post advertisement seems to imply that UK companies don't have to pursue legal action with the same fervour as US companies, as the absence of any strongly worded "sue everyone with names that are 80% similar to yours" advice is lacking.
So yeah, overall, if I cared for commercial oat milk I'd assume that Oatly is a company that employs trigger happy lawyers to litigate their way through the market, putting them on par with most businesses. But that's why I milk my own soy beans at home! Yeehaw, the taste of freedom is beany
This really seems like a situation where maybe Oatly did a crappy thing or maybe they didn't, and maybe they did a thing that they didn't have to do but genuinely thought that they did based on the advice of their lawyers. Your links establish that companies probably don't always have to go after infringement in every case, but also that they definitely have to go after at least some infringement sometimes. Obviously the court has decided that this isn't a case where they needed to do that, but I could very easily see how they or their lawyers might think they would need to.
I don't want to make it seem like I'm overly sympathetic to a multinational corporation. I think huge companies like this are all pretty bad to one degree or another. Grading on a curve, though, from only the information available here, it seems like they're doing pretty okay. The list of companies that deserve a boycott is unfortunately much longer than can practically be followed by the vast majority of people, and this company seems way, way past my "I give up, this is too much" line.
None of these seem particularly bad to me? Even the worst ones seem pretty mild as far as multinational corporations go. Tha fact that they maintain this site at all is pretty cool actually.
Something about more levels to the dream?
https://www.fckfckoatly.com/
That statement contradicts the very motivation behind Oatly's continuous escalation of the lawsuit.
I don't care what people call "milk" but that's a bit much. Society will somehow survive. A single one billion dollar corporation may have lost money with a marketing campaign they can no longer use, but even they will most likely be fine.
OK just call it "oatmilk" and get away with it like Subway gets away with a <12-inch "footlong."