“BREAKING NEWS: EU censorship makes it illegal for vegans to enjoy dairy-free alternatives”
As absurd as that headline sounds, it could very soon be a reality. Amendment 171, currently being considered for approval by the European Commission, could soon make it illegal for producers of plant-based dairy alternatives to use not just terms like “creamy” and “buttery”, but even hint at an association. We take a look at this lobby-led censorship, other bans like it and what it means not just for vegans but Europe as a whole.
In our latest video - This keeps happening to me - we delve into the murky world of animal industry euphemisms such as processing / slaughter and depopulation / mass killing, inspired by the news that the EU could very well make it against the law for vegan-friendly products to even suggest an association with dairy. Why? Because consumers could get confused.
We already have a ban on direct use of “cheese” and “milk” - that is companies like Oatly and VioLife can’t call their products “oat milk” and “vegan cheese” - so where are they going with Amendment 171 (Am171) exactly? The dairy lobbyists don’t want even the slightest association to be alluded to, with Am171 prohibiting "imitation or evocation" of dairy products.
This legally ambiguous wording could make it against the law to even say “does not contain milk”, and as Oatly points out in its campaign against Am171, even packaging similar to dairy products - like cartons and bottles - could be prohibited.
This is all well-reported by Politico, Plant Based News and industry press with the EU Parliament having voted ‘yes’ to Am171 back in October last year. However, it isn’t yet a done deal, according to Oatly:
“Next up are trilogue negotiations involving the European Parliament, the EU Council of Ministers and the European Commission. The commission's own evaluation showed that there is no need for any further restrictions beyond what is already in place, and if the council also supports providing consumers with clear information on plant-based foods, there is a chance that amendment 171 can be rejected.”
Oatly is supporting the ProVeg petition to stop Am171 from making it through this last stage, and of course, we also encourage readers to sign the STOPAM171 petition today. The arguments for putting a stop to it are many, and not just because it is an obvious assault on veganism and the shift away from animal products. The blanket ban is effectively industry-led censorship, but it could make it hard for people who are lactose intolerant to choose products suitable to them. Am171 also contradicts many other EU directives on sustainability, such as its flagship Farm to Fork Strategy, and brings into doubt the institution’s Principle of Proportionality by which any action must only go as far as what is necessary. If the objective is to protect consumer choice, then Am171 does anything but that.
The European dairy industry is understandably all in favour of Am171 and has lobbied for years for bans on labelling and anything that will stifle the growing adoption of plant-based alternatives. Speaking to Food Navigator, lobby group the European Dairy Association (EDA) said: "non-dairy products cannot hijack our dairy terms and the well-deserved reputation of excellence in milk and dairy."
The EDA went on to point out that the EU already protects products of a national origin such as “champagne”, which can’t be made anywhere else but certain regions of France. Although how this extends to the lengths of Am171 in banning the hint of any association is beyond us. It would be the equivalent of banning “French sparkling wine”. And why Am171 would exempt “peanut butter” and “coconut milk” is anyone’s guess.
“The dairy industry seems to feel equally comfortable stealing your right to make an informed choice as it does stealing babies from their mothers.”
With the growing number of well-respected institutions now signalling that a move away from animal agriculture and animal products in our diets, such as this recent report by leading think tank Chatham House on the “disproportionate effect” of animal agriculture on the environment, public health and the emergence of pandemic-causing zoonotic diseases, plus marketing intelligence that reveals consumer trends away from harmful and unsustainable food choices, it seems implausible that the dairy industry would be doing this purely for the good of consumers.
The voting through of Am171 by the EU Parliament in October was fairly marginal, with just 54 per cent of the votes, making it far from unanimous. ProVeg, Oatly and Upfield have all joined forces to make the EU and EC see how Am171 is not just utterly ridiculous, but harmful to the principles of the EU and the citizens it seeks to protect.
How can it be right that the EU stifles a person’s ability to make an informed choice regarding their food, based on issues relating to health and sustainability? The EU saw sense when it voted against imposing a ban on terms like “burger” and “sausage” that was part of the same set of measures as Am171, so we can only hope that they also wake up during these final considerations.
If there is any positive to take away from all this, it is that there is a very real reason why the dairy industry is feeling so under threat that it would put money into lobbying lawmakers to go as far as censoring the labelling of competitor products. They know that everyday people are fast becoming aware of the harm caused by dairy, an industry propped up by subsidies steeped in corruption and tainted by the disgrace that is its treatment of dairy mothers and their calves.
The dairy industry seems to feel equally comfortable stealing your right to make an informed choice as it does stealing babies from their mothers.
Andrew Gough is Media and Investigations Manager for Surge.
Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.
LATEST ARTICLES
