By Ben Bennett – President, Australian Dairy Farmers
Have you ever seen anyone attach milking cups to a coconut, or herd almonds into a dairy shed?
It might sound flippant, but the question cuts to the heart of a serious issue Australia continues to ignore – one the rest of the world has resolved and committed to.
Last month, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court confirmed that products made from plants cannot be called “milk”, “butter” or “yoghurt” if they are not derived from animals.
The ruling reinforces long‑standing laws across the UK, the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) that reserve dairy terms for dairy products.
Yet in Australia, our government has chosen a different path. Instead of clear, enforceable rules, it has endorsed a voluntary labelling code for plant‑based products – one to be written by the plant‑based industry itself.
That decision leaves Australia increasingly out of step with global standards.
This is about honesty, not choice.
Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) is not calling for plant‑based products to be removed from supermarket shelves. Consumers should have choice.
But choice only works when information is clear and honest.
Milk, cheese and yoghurt are whole foods. They come from a single, natural source and have earned consumer trust over generations.
They also have a well‑understood nutritional profile that matters, particularly for children, older Australians and vulnerable groups.
Plant‑based engineered products are different. They are formulated to mimic the taste and appearance of dairy. While many are fortified with vitamins and minerals, they are not nutritionally equivalent.
Some are highly processed and engineered through additives to approximate what dairy provides naturally.
When these products use dairy terms, they trade on dairy’s reputation and trust while offering something fundamentally different.
Consumers may know that a product labelled “oat milk” comes from oats. But that is not the same as understanding it does not deliver the same nutrition as milk.
That distinction matters.
The Federal Government recently spent $1.5 million on a labelling review led by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, with Food Standards Australia New Zealand commissioned to survey consumers.
The review concluded there was limited consumer confusion. Australian Dairy Farmers strongly disputes that finding.
The survey focused largely on whether consumers could identify whether a product was plant‑based.
It did not meaningfully test whether people understand the nutritional differences between dairy and imitation products, or whether they believe these products offer the same health benefits.
Industry was not given the opportunity to provide input into key questions posed to consumers.
Reporting was later drafted in ways that downplayed earlier findings indicating confusion around nutrition.
If you don’t ask honest questions, you won’t get honest answers.
Instead of addressing these shortcomings, the government endorsed the development of a voluntary code of practice led by the Alternative Proteins Council.
This approach is fundamentally flawed.
You cannot ask an industry that imitates genuine products to write the rules governing how dairy language should be used.
That is a clear conflict of interest.
A voluntary code is not regulation. It provides no certainty and no protection for consumers or farmers. Companies that choose not to sign up can continue as they always have.
Yet again, the fox is being asked to build the hen house.
What makes this situation even more baffling is that Australia helped shape the international Codex standards, which define milk as “the normal mammary secretion obtained from the milking of animals”.
We accept those standards in international trade negotiations. We rely on them when exporting Australian dairy into markets that fiercely protect dairy terms.
But at home, we refuse to apply the same logic.
Australia is a major dairy exporter. Failing to protect dairy terms domestically undermines our credibility and weakens the standing of Australian dairy in global markets where those words are legally protected.
Our trading partners understand the value of dairy terms. Why doesn’t our own government?
Across the EU, the UK and the US, plant‑based products can be sold freely – but they cannot be called milk or yoghurt. They may use descriptors like “alternative” or “style”, but the core dairy terms remain reserved for dairy.
This is not radical. It is common sense.
Words matter. When consumers pick up a product labelled “milk”, it should come from a cow – not a marketing department.
The rest of the world recognises that dairy words have meaning. Australia should too.