Yes it is a law.

@Lukian Why has coconut been sold since the 1950s? Is the law relatively new? I thought the cartons of nut milk already state that they do not contain dairy, but understand, with loose definitions, charletans could sell oil in water as "milk".

@Zster law was implemented at least since 1983 (maybe even the 70's). I would suspect that coconut milk will be part of this new FDA action (which could be to change the definition or not)

The FDA dropped the ball in not enforcing this legislation in the past but the regulation is clear and the industry is at fault.

Plant milk is already fooling the consumer because there is no legal standard for strength nor restriction of additive ingredients which is the case for dairy milk.

just btw the Canadian prevented Muscle milk from using the word milk in their name:
In USA: [musclemilk.com]
In Canada: [musclemlk.ca] (milk is written MLK).

The law only exists because the dairy corporations are losing money. Too many people have given up dairy. If you want a law all you need is enough money to bribe a few politicians..

@PhoebeCat even if the law is actually 35 years old?

@Lukian
People bought politicians all along. This isn't a new phenomenon. It's always about money.

@PhoebeCat Thanks for your reply. I should not have commented. I'm done with this thread.

great way to avoid the subject. And good answer.

nice try:
TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER B--FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

PART 164 -- TREE NUT AND PEANUT PRODUCTS

Subpart B--Requirements for Specific Standardized Tree Nut and Peanut Products
Sec. 164.150 Peanut butter.

(a) Peanut butter is the food prepared by grinding one of the shelled and roasted peanut ingredients provided for by paragraph of this section, to which may be added safe and suitable seasoning and stabilizing ingredients provided for by paragraph of this section, but such seasoning and stabilizing ingredients do not in the aggregate exceed 10 percent of the weight of the finished food. To the ground peanuts, cut or chopped, shelled, and roasted peanuts may be added. During processing, the oil content of the peanut ingredient may be adjusted by the addition or subtraction of peanut oil. The fat content of the finished food shall not exceed 55 percent when determined as prescribed in "Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists," 13th Ed. (1980), section 27.006(a) under "Crude Fat--Official First Action, Direct Method," in paragraph (a), which is incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North Frederick Ave., suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: [archives.gov].

@Lukian Way to kill my joke.

@Gareth I'm a regulation (almost) expert.

OMG, the same applies! That takes the non-enforcement back to 1895!

[nationalpeanutboard.org]

@Zster non-enforcement? There is a regulation that defines peanut butter see above.

@Lukian Sorry, did not read the reg attached as I was socializing f2f at the time. Seems like a dbl std, though. The law allows it to be called "peanut butter" when there is no dairy or butter in it, yet cannot have "almond milk" because it is not of dairy origin or has milk in it. IF they applied the same std to both (they don't), there'd have been decades of nonenforcement. We've called it peanut butter since the 1890s and coconut MILK since the 1950s. Not sure why NOW the nutmilks get a legal slap. I have to wonder if Coco Lopez will have to comply or not.

@Zster thanks, did not read your comment. I am done with this thread.

that is not the point. The point is that the regulation defines the word Milk and almond milk does not meet that requirement. It is a legislative impasse. In that situation, do you let the companies off the hook? Nobody is answering that basic question.

@Lukian True, but it was the dairy industry that helped defind the word milk in the context of the cows.
Saying lactating animals is what defines the white stuff is a part of the issue.
Anytime you have special interests influencing legislation things seem to go south.
LOL - I just got a mental image of Joel Grey doing the tune "Money makes the World Go 'Round" from the movie 'Cabaret'. It is after all about the money. Sorry I digress.

@silverotter11 that is a fallacy... The etymology of the word is all about lactation. and the Codex Alimentarius (a default legislation part of the WHO) also defines milk very similarly as the FDA.
[en.wikipedia.org]
[fao.org]

@Lukian You are correct. I only went so back with my thinking. Part of the issue is government interfering, do you remember government cheese? Then the government paying farmers to not produce so much milk, subsidizing and just goes 'round and 'round. Granted not as bad as big oil, big pharma, etc.

My opinion is not to degrade the alternative products but to agree that they should not be called milk under the current regulations.

The word "meat' is being taken off of the label as well if it is not carrion.

@Lukian I know what your intention was. My intention was the same, plus I like to expose things for what they really are.

@Countrywoman I don't understand?

@Lukian The word "meat" is being taken off of tofu veggie burger labels also

@Countrywoman ok thanks, I'm done with this thread.

as stated earlier: the law/definition is in place since 1983. Food manufacturers knew this yet ignored it. Is that the signal we should give to industry, to ignore the regulations? Slippery slope.

@Lukian It is the FDA's original foolish and arbitrary regulation I assail, not merely their decision to enforce it. "Milk is the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows."
By this definition, goat's milk would also be disqualified.

It is clear that the FDA is beholden to the dairy lobby, which is reeling under the trend to move away from cow's milk. One need only look at the daily nutrition guidelines as evidence that lobbying trumps science. The slippery slope here involves , influence and revolving doors.

what do you suggest this product stands for?
[musclemilk.com]

@Lukian Consider milkweed. It isn't milk. The dairy industry is losing $$$so they are petitioning the government for exclusive use of "milk" "dairy" etc. I still won't touch the stuff.

@Countrywoman (pulling my leg here?) This not about the dairy industry, this is about companies that have directly violated a clear regulation and the government will act upon it. It also is not about forcing people to drink milk but that the word milk is exclusive to dairy. Don't confuse personal preference with legislation.
I ask the question again: should the FDA let companies disregard a 35 y.o. clear regulation (i.e definition of milk)?

@pnfullifidian Look at China that killed children when milk powder was doped with melamine. Regulations are in place to clearly define what a food should be, how it's made. The wording expressed in the regulation above is to clearly state what milk is and prevent adulteration e.g. if it doesn't come from a cow, goat, or sheep then it's not milk.
Would you accept a combination of Cow's milk and soy milk be called milk without the need to give the proportions of each since it's all milk anyway?

@Lukian Again, the regulation is the problem. It is counterfactual. Long before dairies, people were drinking plant milk and referring to it as milk. And well before the FDA adopted this regulation, we were buying and consuming coconut milk. What we have here is an unenforceable and stupid regulation which should never have been written. As for MuscleMilk, nobody is being confused by the name, and as long as the contents of the product are clearly labeled, who cares what they call it?

@pnfullifidian not true about plant milk... the etymology of milk is all about lactation. Search it yourself.
So say it: The FDA should let these companies off the hook for violating a clearly define regulation. (I don't want to say it for you).

@Lukian We may just have to agree to disagree. I don't see any need for there to be a hook from which to be let off, since the absurd 'regulation' here is the problem, not the manufacturers. It is overreach on the part of the government to seek to regulate what we choose to call something. And it is even more hypocritical in light of the fact that the dairy lobby is behind this decision. Again, no one is confused by the dairy vs. non-dairy milk distinction, and product safety is not enhanced by the FDA's folly.

As I said before, so long as the ingredients are clearly labeled, the consumer is informed. If the rest of the world (including the EU which is very particular about naming rights when it comes to regional foods like wines and cheeses), is unconcerned about terms like coconut, rice, soy or almond milk, why should we? Do we really want to live in a nanny state? The Chinese baby formula example is a red herring.

@pnfullifidian (again not wanting to put word in your mouth), your take is when this will go to court the plant milk defense could be: Your honour, Although the FDA regulation clearly defines milk as a product of lactation, we believe the consumer is unconcerned and neither confused by this terminology. You would agree if the judge agrees with the defense?

@Lukian Not quite. It would be along the lines of, “Your honor, while we recognize the regulatory authority of the FDA to protect the public, we also recognize the potential for unwarranted, immoderate or gratuitous regulation, opaquely drafted, sometimes with the assistance of a third party with an agenda.” The case here should hinge on the right or ‘legal standing’ of the FDA to narrowly define ‘milk,’ a word applying to many products that have more than one meaning, worldwide, and the common use of which predates the founding of the FDA, not to mention the United States. The FDA’s definition of milk, plain and simple, is what the dairy industry wanted, not what best serves the public. As such, it is fundamentally unethical and should not be allowed, and here, I would trust a jury’s consideration over that of an individual judge. Peace.

@pnfullifidian thanks. did not read. I'm done with this thread.

@Lukian That's why I ended with 'peace.' You've worn me out!

now we all know what the plant milk producers need to do.

the rule was implemented in1983, 35years ago, way before soy and almond milk was a thing.

So we should just let deceptive advertising practices go on? It happens with much more than just this, but it's still not right. If the companies that are supposed to be "looking out" for you and offering healthier alternatives, but they lie or mislead just in their product title, then what else are they lying about? Wouldn't it be better to get the truth? This is partly why everyone is so damn unhealthy today. It's estimated that about 80% of our food supply is processed crap with empty calories and additives. This only perpetuates it.

is this milk?
[musclemilk.com]

@Piece2YourPuzzle I'm really not worried about the demographic of people who think that almonds have nipples, but good looking out because they were really being taken advantage of due to the fact that they thought someone was milking a fucking almond.

There's a major difference between unhealthy and deceptive marketing campaigns and creating a milk alternative and labeling it "almond milk". Acting as if "soy milk" was trying to convince their buyers that soy lactation was a reality is in the same genre as the other healthy food marketing campaigns is more than a stretch, it's bullshit.

@Lukian You got me there, I thought someone was milking muscles to make it and due to that fact I've been siphoning money into the company that profits because I think muscles generate milk. There's a difference between deceptive marketing and basic marketing and the fact that you can't tell the difference actually lends credence to your theory that people are too stupid for their own good.

@mattersauce Sure it is.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Gee, you changed my mind then.

@mattersauce we do live in a society that requires to mention Hot liquid on take out coffee cups and application instructions on shampoo bottles.

@mattersauce I know I didn't, that's why I didn't go further. You can't see the forest for the trees. Carry on though.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Is it a milk forest, because we need to label that shit right.

@Lukian Hot liquid burns people and has, and where exactly are the regulations requiring shampoo application instructions?

@mattersauce no regulation just a requirement.

@mattersauce Well now you're being even more ridiculous than you were before. Once again, can't see past the label.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Your thoughts on my character and vision are both irrelevant while simultaneously showing me that you have nothing further to add to the discussion and no further points to make in favor of "people need to be warned of the dangers of fake almond milk".... I'm not debating your thoughts on me and the past 3 replies that's all you've had. Move on to another topic if you have nothing else to add.

@Lukian I found a regulation stating that shampoo requires a label for its intended purpose but nothing demanding directions. [fda.gov]

@mattersauce I offered all I care to really. If you can't see the bigger picture, and can't refrain from belittling the subject or people involved with it, then why should I offer anything further? My thoughts on you are just that you can't see the bigger picture. That's all. Stop acting like a child.

@Piece2YourPuzzle 4 replies with no value.

You've provided no "bigger picture" to see. Your last slightly useful post was a bunch of rhetorical questions and a claim that "almond milk" was false advertising and was leading to so many unhealthy people. I responded with how deceptive advertising is not "lying in the title of the product". Pom Wonderful claimed that it reduced the risk of certain cancers and heart disease with no supporting data. That is deceptive advertising, naming your milk substitute drink with "milk" in the title along with the source is not deceptive, it's putting everything out in the forefront. Your claim is ridiculous.

Once again, I don't care that you think I'm acting like a child. You don't owe me any further explanation and have no requirement to respond. We both agree that you have nothing else to offer, no necessity to do so, think I'm childish, and have no vision, move on and stop posting.

@mattersauce How is this for value, you troll? Kiss my ass! Smug prick.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Nope, still no value.

I'm sorry but I'm not trolling, I'm happy to discuss the topic but it's clear that you're not. You'd rather provide your thoughts on my understanding and character for the past 4 replies. I didn't ask for those and they're irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you can't expand your reply with supporting data and criteria, then I have no use for you in this discussion.

If you're upset that I'm causing you frustration I can understand that, and it's true that I have been smug. At some point I stopped being interesed in your replies because I simply wanted you to post something useful or go away. What I'd respect is if you could put your frustration to the side and focus on the discussion and attempt to support your argument. I'm never going to care what you think of me.

Long before almond, soy and rice milk were widely available, we raised our son on goat's milk (due to allergies), and we also consumed coconut milk. This definition is clearly too narrow, and favors one particular group--the dairy industry.

Are cows the only animal whose lacteal secretions can be marketed as milk?

@JimG nope. Farther in the regulation goat and sheep are also covered.

@pnfullifidian point noted. I would say it protects the consumer rather (not an industry) which is the essence of the regulation and Food And Drug Act. So should the FDA ignore companies that directly disregard this regulation (be it right or wrong in your book)?

good question: either they will be called something else or the regulation can be changed.

I understand the point but milk is defined in the FDA regulation. There is no standard on how much almonds must constitute almond milk. Sometimes there is only 15 almonds in a liter (pint). The dairy industry is unfairly penalized because of all the restrictions on milk processing that does not apply to other plant milks. This is a correction to the market.

is this milk?
[musclemilk.com]

cream

not really because if they do not act on this then any company can basically disregard the regulations since milk is clearly defined in the regulations. If this is a waste of resources then why have regulations altogether?

It's a much bigger picture here. It goes way beyond just clarifying something that isn't milk.

is this milk?
[musclemilk.com]