Yet we can still buy “Milk of Magnesia” for poorly tummies.
Oatly banned from using word ‘milk’ to market plant-based products in UK
Submitted 11 hours ago by Veserr@sh.itjust.works to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
Comments
fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 2 hours ago
flamingos@feddit.uk 10 hours ago
On Wednesday the supreme court unanimously ruled that Oatly can no longer trademark, or use, the slogan “Post Milk Generation”.
This is even dumber when you realise Oatly is explicitly prompting themselves as not-milk.
Nighed@feddit.uk 9 hours ago
That doesn’t stop them from calling the product “oat milk” though does it?
flamingos@feddit.uk 9 hours ago
You haven’t been able to do that since 2017, the European Court of Justice said so.
jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 11 hours ago
Uh oh, better ban the term “coconut milk” too
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
Peanut butter too. Someone could get confused!
jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 43 minutes ago
And butterflies obviously need to be renamed to nondairyflies
Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 hours ago
Here in the Ger of Many, you can buy scouring agents which are branded as “scouring milk” (Scheuermilch), but oat milk is where we draw the line, apparently.
wewbull@feddit.uk 10 hours ago
I’m all for clear labelling on food. I think it’s important. I don’t see the need to stop them using “milk” in any form. As long as it’s part of hyphenate “oat-milk” there shouldn’t be an issue.
davidagain@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Braindead ruling. Not as braindead as “the equality act was not intended to protect trans people” which is about as stupid and fucked up as it gets, but still really pretty braindead.
rmuk@feddit.uk 5 hours ago
Eh, I agree. I’ll still call it “oat milk” but I don’t think they should be allowed to call it “milk” in any form. I get they have quirky marketing and, IMHO, a great product, but allowing a corporation to use a work like that laissez-faire is pretty dangerous: oat milk isn’t naturally occuring and their product has lots of extra stuff added in (sweeteners, fortifiers, etc), neither of which should be true for a productive called “milk”.
wpb@lemmy.world 29 minutes ago
but I don’t think companies should be allowed to sell it as “milk” in any form
Well sure, and they haven’t been able to in almost a decade. This court ruling is about something else.
blackn1ght@feddit.uk 3 hours ago
What about coconut milk?
rmuk@feddit.uk 2 hours ago
Natural and unadulterated. So, yeah.
tenebrisnox@feddit.uk 2 hours ago
Have the courts come to an actual definition of what (animal) milk actually is? Last I read, neither EU or UK could define it. Milk’s content differs so much from brand to brand and there’s no set standard. Presumably other than it comes from an animal of some kind.
Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 hours ago
yes! we shall stop the capitalists by monitoring their language! this time we’ll get em!
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
What about Man Milk? Can I keep calling it Man Milk?
mjr@infosec.pub 10 hours ago
Only if it stays the hell away from my coffee! 🤮
jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 7 hours ago
Amateur
davidagain@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Not if you’re selling it in shops.
I think you’re in the clear if you’re just giving it away to people you like.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml 10 hours ago
The dairy industry is losing market share at an accelerated rate. I’m sure this will fix it.
So stupid.
Strawberry@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
yeah, it feels kinda petty on behalf of the dairy people tbh