The founder and CEO of Miyoko’s Creamery is hoping to set a precedent with her company’s lawsuit against the California Department of Food and Agriculture that could help pave the way for other makers of plant-based products.
“This is the wave of the future, and we believe these products should be allowed to be called by names that are recognizable to consumers,” says Miyoko Schinner, in an interview with Specialty Food.
Miyoko’s filed the suit earlier this month after the CDFA sent her company a letter saying she could not use the term “butter” on her packaging to describe her Cultured Vegan Butter product, which is made from cashews, and that she had to remove images of farm animals from her website and other marketing materials. The CFDA was also preparing to send her a similar letter concerning her vegan cheeses, she said.
A spokesman for the CDFA was not immediately available for comment.
The CDFA’s letter follows a host of civil and regulatory actions in several states around the country that seek to limit the use of words that have traditionally been used to describe products made from animal-based ingredients. These measures take aim at the rapidly growing lines of plant-based alternatives to dairy and meat products, many of which use terms such as “milk,” “yogurt,” “cheese,” “burger” and “jerky.”
Anja Raudabaugh. CEO of Western United Dairies, a Modesto, California-based trade group representing the state’s dairy industry, which opposes the Miyoko’s Creamery lawsuit, says the labels used by plant-based dairy alternatives pose risks to consumer health.
“Many in the plant-based industry often argue that consumers know the difference between real milk and imitators,” she tells Specialty Food. “What consumers don’t always understand is the wildly different nutritional profiles of non-dairy products. This creates a false consumer perception of equivalence when dairy terms are used on their labels – and often encourage well-meaning consumers to make purchasing decisions they may reconsider were labels more accurate.”
She notes that the Food and Drug Administration’s definition of “milk” dictates that the product must come from a lactating animal.
“Today, many imitation dairy beverages and products circumvent these regulations and continually label their products using dairy terms and imagery when these items are not at all similar to real milk,” she says.
In 2018, the FDA began a multi-year review of the nomenclature used in the plant-based dairy industry, citing potential confusion among consumers about the nutritional value of plant-based dairy products.
Raudabaugh cited a 2018 IPSOS survey commissioned by Dairy Management Inc. that found that 77 percent of consumers thought almond-based drinks had as much or more protein as milk from cows, for example, while in fact cow’s milk has much more protein, she said.
The Plant Based Foods Association, meanwhile, last year released research showing that 87 percent of consumers were not confused about the differences between plant-based and traditional dairy products.
Among the states that have introduced legislation seeking to restrict the wording used to describe plant-based meat and dairy alternatives are Wisconsin, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Louisiana. In many cases, animal agriculture industries have complained that plant-based companies should at a minimum be using the word “imitation” to describe their products.
In December, a federal judge blocked Arkansas form enforcing its proposed meat-labeling law, after a lawsuit filed by plant-based meat maker Tofurky and the American Civil Liberties Union argued that is was a violation of the company’s right to free speech under the First Amendment.
Likewise, the Miyoko’s lawsuit also alleges that the CDFA letter infringes on that company’s right to free speech.
In addition to the complaint about her use of the word “butter,” Miyoko’s was also told to remove images of cows from its website and marketing materials, including an image of a woman hugging a cow on the company’s website. Schinner says the animals depicted on the company’s website are from her farm animal sanctuary, and reflect the company’s position of compassion toward animals.
“We were told that because we are not a producer of milk products, that we could not depict images of animals on our website or any of our marketing materials,” Schinner says. “They are telling us certain terminology, and certain images, can only be associated with animal agriculture, and we are restricted in our right to use language and images, and we felt that was a violation of our First Amendment rights.”
The Plant Based Foods Association says it supports Miyoko’s efforts.
“Plant-based food companies do not need government getting in the way of their innovation in the food marketplace, which provides consumers with healthy, sustainable food options,” the organization tells Specialty Food.
This is not the first time Schinner has gone up against state regulators. Last year the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture ordered the removal of Miyoko’s vegan butter from retail shelves, citing complaints from consumers. When Miyoko’s pressed the state to see the consumer complaints, they turned out to be from the dairy industry itself, Schinner says.
When she first launched her company, Schinner was concerned that regulators might try to restrict her use of the word “cheese,” and so she called her first vegan cheese a “cultured nut product.” Consumers soon began calling it cheese anyway, she says.
“We decided consumers are going to call it cheese no matter what we called it, so let’s just call it cheese, and of course we modified it with ‘vegan,’” Schinner says.
Related: Miyoko's Creamery Sues State of California; Vegan Cheeses Gain Momentum Amid Investments.
Photo credit: Miyoko's Creamery
from Specialty Food News https://ift.tt/2UZTX2E
No comments: