The vegan diet has soared in popularity in the last five years, but some meat substitutes labelled as vegan contain milk or egg, according to an analysis of products. Market research firm Mintel found that sales of products such as meat-free sausages had doubled from £289m in 2017 to £586m in 2021. Last year sales fell slightly by 6%, even though 49% of people eat meat substitutes regularly.
With the increasing demand for these goods, those in the supply sector are looking to meet those demands with a variety of products awash with terms such as vegan, vegan-friendly and plant-based. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) researched what people assume about vegan and plant-based products based on surveying 2,000 people.
They found 76% of consumers believe a vegan label means it is free from animal-derived products, especially allergens such as eggs, milk, fish and shellfish. CTSI analysis found, however, that one in three vegan products on sale actually contained milk or egg. The law on what is vegan is opaque, with no legal definition of the word. This means a vegan product does not have to be completely free of animal-derived products.
What about adverts?
In 2020, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint against three adverts for Burger King’s plant-based “Rebel Whopper” burger. The ASA considered consumers would understand the ads’ “100% Whopper. No beef” tagline, and in particular the term “plant-based burger”, to mean that it did not contain any beef or animal products. However, while the patty itself was plant-based, it was cooked on the same grill as meat products and the complete burger contained egg-based mayonnaise.
The ASA also considered that the presence of the “Vegetarian Butcher” logo, the ad’s green colour palette and the timing of the product release to coincide with Veganuary contributed further to the erroneous impression that it was suitable for vegans and vegetarians. The ads were ruled to be in breach of the rules and considered a misleading advert. A spokesperson for the ASA said it was the government’s role to set legal definitions for foods. The composition of food products, their safety and labelling is overseen by trading standards and the Food Standards Agency.
They added: “From the ASA’s standpoint, we require advertising to be truthful. That means ads should not contain anything that is likely to mislead. If an ad for a vegan food prompted concerns that it was not 100% vegan we would stand ready to look into the matter.”
By law, food businesses need to tell customers if what they sell contains any of the 14 listed allergens as an ingredient. This includes saying if there is an identified risk of cross-contamination with milk, or egg, among other things. Precautionary allergen labelling regarding cross-contamination is voluntary, not compulsory or mandatory. Many vegan-marked products will also have precautionary statements about the risk of animal-derived allergens.
The 14 allergens are: celery, gluten-containing cereals, crustaceans, eggs, fish, lupin, milk, molluscs, mustard, peanuts, sesame, soya beans, tree nuts and sulphites. However, for consumers with animal-derived allergens, a product marked vegan or plant-based is becoming synonymous with meaning safe for them to eat. The presumption is that these products will not contain any traces of anything animal-derived, including animal-derived allergens. Chartered Trading Standards Institute’s polling shows that among respondents with a milk allergy, 84.6% believe vegan foods are safe for them to eat. This belief was the highest (92.7%) among 35-44-year-olds.
The use of dairy-related terms
According to new draft guidance, plant-based products may have restrictions on using terms such as “cheese” or “yoghurt” to describe themselves. The guidance aims to assist trading standards officers in interpreting and enforcing laws governing the labelling and marketing of dairy alternatives.
While plant-based products are already prohibited from using the term “milk” to describe themselves, an early draft of the guidance from February 2022 suggests that this restriction could be expanded to include terms like “cheese” and “yoghurt,” even if accompanied by “vegan” or “plant-based” qualifiers.
The draft proposes banning descriptors such as “yoghurt-style” or “cheddar-type,” as well as homophones or misspellings like “mylk.” Additionally, plant-based products may be prohibited from stating that they are “not milk” or positioning themselves as “alternatives” to dairy products.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has informed plant-based companies that local authorities and trading standards officers are responsible for enforcing dairy labelling and marketing standards. The guidance is being prepared by the Food Standards Information Group (FSIG), a collection of senior trading standards experts, to support local officials in applying existing laws.
Member of the FSIG, David Pickering, emphasised that they aim to provide a fair and balanced interpretation of the legislation, suggesting that market stakeholders should lobby the government if they disagree with it.
The UK ranks among the top consumers of plant-based products globally, with plant-based drinks experiencing a 24% sales increase between 2020 and 2022, reaching £276 million and capturing a 7% market share. Dairy UK, a trade association representing the dairy industry, has advocated for stricter guidelines for plant-based products since at least 2017.
Members of Dairy UK include companies such as Arla Foods, Saputo and Müller. The association raised concerns about the misuse of protected dairy terms and the use of qualifying terms to indicate a product’s dairy-free nature. Dairy UK submitted a position paper to Defra supporting the FSIG’s draft proposals and urging the government to protect dairy terms.
Nearly half (48%) of UK consumers consume at least one plant-based milk alternative. Marisa Heath, CEO of the Plant Based Food Alliance UK, expressed concern that the proposed measures would make the UK one of the most restrictive nations regarding labelling regulations. She argued that consumers are knowledgeable and should be empowered to make their own shopping choices.
Various industry voices have criticised the proposed restrictions, arguing that they lack clarity for consumers and hinder their ability to choose dairy alternatives. Public affairs director of Oatly, Cecilia McAleavey, expressed concern that further restrictions would make it harder for consumers to find dairy alternatives and make informed choices.
Chief executive of Dairy UK, Dr Judith Bryans, stated that the draft guidance aims to clarify labelling and marketing practices and minimise consumer confusion. She emphasised the nutrient richness of dairy foods and their irreplaceable role in a balanced diet. A spokesperson from Defra responded to the claims, stating that the power to enforce dairy marketing and labelling laws lies with local authorities and Defra has not exerted any influence in this matter.
If implemented, stricter regulations in the UK would go beyond the existing restrictions in the EU and the US. While the European Court of Justice has banned terms like “milk” and “cheese” for plant-based products, Amendment 171, which could have introduced further restrictions, was abandoned.
The debate over the proposed guidance reflects the growing popularity of plant-based products in the UK and the concerns of both the dairy and plant-based sectors regarding fair labelling practices and consumer choice. The final version of the guidance will determine how plant-based products can be marketed and described and it remains to be seen how local authorities will enforce the regulations once they are in place.
Potential labelling rule changes not communicated
Brands are still in the dark on potentially seismic plant-based food labelling enforcement guidance scheduled to arrive in spring. The guidance, which will be policed by Trading Standards, is expected to enforce tighter controls on branding and labelling in the plant-based dairy alternatives category. However, the details remain closed to brands, despite plans to roll out the new regulatory regime within months.
Marisa Heath, CEO of the Plant-Based Food Alliance, said the lack of communication around the new regulations was an “issue, because how is the sector going to know what it’s dealing with if it’s not allowed to see it?” Last May, The Grocer reported a potential ban on words like ‘mylk’, ‘yogs’ and ‘sheeze’ was in the works, alongside a ban on statements such as ‘not milk’, marketing images that invoke milk, and use of terms such as ‘an alternative to X’ or ‘yoghurt-style’. At the time, the proposals also covered terms such as ‘red Leicester flavour’ on non-dairy products and descriptors such as ‘semi’ or ‘whole’ applied to plant-based drinks.
The PBFA said a number of brands could potentially be affected. Heath – who has been working with the Food Standards & Information Focus Group on the guidelines – said the potential clampdown was “really disappointing”. “We’re still very perplexed by the reasoning and we haven’t been given clarity by FSIFG.” No retailer had received complaints about confusion or shoppers buying a plant-based product when they intended to buy the dairy version, Heath added.
“This isn’t an anti-dairy agenda or anything like that,” said Heath. “It’s just about getting people to make other choices as well as continuing with those additional choices.” “I think consumers will be against the legislation,” said Simon Hurley, managing director at consultancy P2P Food Solutions, “I think they’ll say it’s been unfair.” “I get that we need to make sure there is no confusion,” he added. “But it can’t just be a blanket banning of language that the consumer understands.”
Using “alternative to” and similar communications helped consumers identify how products could be used as part of a balanced diet, Heath argued. It is not yet clear how the rules will be implemented or enforced, but there are concerns it will be done on a local authority level, which would make it “a bit of a lottery”, she added. “We’re very worried about the implementation of this. Should the guidance be enforced on a local level, this raises questions about what it means for brands elsewhere in the country,” she explained. “It’s really unclear and confusing about how this will actually be done.”
There are also concerns around the cost of changing product marketing and packaging for brands impacted by the change in rules. “For brands like Oatly and Alpro, for brands to go and change [branding] it will cost billions and billions,” explained Hurley. “That’s going to lead to loss of sale, loss of profit and ultimately the person who is going to suffer from that is the consumer in the long run.” Similar rules could also be implemented on the meat-free category, both Hurley and Heath warned, but these are in early stages.
