UK court rules against Oatly using ‘milk’ on their ‘diary’ drinks

Fact checked – 8 min read

Oat ‘milk’ vs real milk, what the law actually says
In news just released, Oatly has lost a long-running UK legal battle (1) to use the word ‘milk’ on their (oat) milk alternatives, reigniting debate as to what can legally be called ‘milk.’ UK courts ruled that certain marketing uses of the word ‘milk’ for oat-based drinks are restricted under UK and retained EU food-labelling law. These regulations reserve the term ‘milk’ for normal mammary secretions from animals, with only a few traditional exceptions such as coconut milk or almond milk permitted by historical usage rules (1).

The case is not just a branding dispute, it highlights a broader tension between legal definitions, consumer expectations, and the rapidly expanding market for plant-based dairy alternatives. In the UK and across the EU, the word ‘milk’ is protected as a specific designation for animal-derived products. This originates from long-standing dairy marketing standards incorporated into UK law after Brexit, which aim to prevent consumers from confusing plant beverages with nutritionally distinct dairy foods. However, scientific bodies and public-health agencies take a more nuanced view.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) does not regulate marketing terms in the same way as agricultural law but instead focuses on nutrition and safety (2). However, In the European Union, plant-based products cannot be labeled as ‘milk’ or ‘cheese,’ as these terms are legally reserved for animal-derived products under Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013, which defines and protects dairy designations.

Why naming matters: consumer understanding and ethics
The controversy raises ethical questions. Should plant-based beverages be allowed to use familiar dairy terminology to help consumers understand their purpose and usage, or does this risk misleading people into thinking the products are nutritionally interchangeable? Research shows that many consumers assume plant-based milks offer similar protein, iodine, and vitamin B12 content to dairy milk, even when this is not the case (3). Cow’s milk naturally provides a consistent package of protein, calcium, iodine, riboflavin and vitamin B12, while plant alternatives often rely on fortification to approximate this profile (4).

From an ethical standpoint, clear labelling may support informed choice without unnecessarily restricting language. Critics of strict naming laws argue that consumers generally understand that oat or almond “milk” is plant-derived. Supporters counter that vulnerable groups, children, older adults, or those with restricted diets, may face nutrient deficiencies if they unknowingly replace dairy with nutritionally weaker alternatives (5). The ethical balance therefore lies between clarity and practicality: ensuring consumers are not misled nutritionally while recognising evolving dietary patterns and environmental concerns.

Nutritional comparison: dairy vs non-dairy milks
From a nutritional perspective, EFSA and other scientific authorities emphasise that plant-based drinks vary widely in nutrient composition and should not automatically be assumed to be equivalent to cow’s milk unless fortified appropriately (6). This gap between legal definitions and nutritional realities sits at the centre of the modern ‘milk’ debate. Cow’s milk remains one of the most nutrient-dense beverages commonly consumed, particularly for protein, iodine, calcium, and certain B-vitamins (table 1). Sheep and goat milk are similarly rich but differ slightly in fat and micronutrient content. Plant-based drinks vary widely depending on their base ingredient and whether they are fortified (3). The table below summarises typical values per 100 ml for common milks based on UK datasets (7). Values are approximate because plant drinks differ widely by brand and fortification.

Cow’s milk and sheep milk stand out for naturally occurring protein, iodine and B-vitamins. Soy drinks are nutritionally the closest plant alternative when fortified, while oat and almond drinks are typically lower in protein and micronutrients unless fortified (3). Replacing dairy entirely with unfortified plant drinks may reduce intake of iodine, riboflavin and vitamin B12 in some populations, particularly older adults and children.

UK nutrition experts highlight conerns
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) is the UK government’s independent expert committee that reviews scientific evidence and advises on nutrition and dietary guidelines for public health, whilst the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is an independent UK expert committee that assesses health risks from chemicals in food, consumer products, and the environment, and advises government departments.

A report commisioned by the UK Government in July 2025 conducted by the SACN and COT (9), at the time of the assessment, found that almond, oat and soya drinks available in the UK were not nutritionally equivalent to cows’ milk and were not acceptable substitutes, and that replacing cows’ milk with almond, oat or soya drinks would result in potential benefits and risks from both a nutritional and a toxicological perspective.

For most contaminants, there was no clear difference between cows’ milk and plant based drinks. The main toxicological concern identified was isoflavone exposure from soya drinks in young children, especially those on vegan diets, due to higher intake relative to body weight. The risk of inadequate intake of key micronutrients (e.g., vitamin A, iodine, riboflavin, B12, calcium), especially in young children (ages 1–5) who rely on milk for nutrients was identified. Lower protein content in almond and oat drinks, could be a concern for some groups; soya drinks are closer to cows’ milk in protein, whilst plant based drinks that are unfortified or sweetened pose greater nutritional and health risks.

The sustainability angle
In support of the findings by SACN and COT, a recently published BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health review (5) highlighted that dairy foods provide key nutrients but also contribute to environmental impacts such as greenhouse-gas emissions and land use. Plant-based drinks often have lower environmental footprints, except for almond milk (4), but require careful fortification to match dairy’s nutritional value. Rather than viewing dairy and plant alternatives as mutually exclusive, many nutrition experts now advocate a balanced approach that considers both environmental sustainability and nutrient adequacy (3).

Toxins in animal and plant-based ‘milks’
In the United States and Europe, both dairy and plant-based milks can contain trace contaminants, but levels are generally monitored and kept within safety limits. In animal milks, environmental pollutants such as dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticide residues may be present in very small amounts due to bioaccumulation in feed and soil, and these are controlled through routine surveillance and maximum-residue regulations enforced by authorities including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (9), and EFSA (10).

Naturally occurring hormones such as estrogens, progesterone, and insulin-like growth factor-1(IGF-1) are intrinsic to cow’s milk, while the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is permitted in the United States (10), but prohibited in the European Union (11). However, even where used, regulatory reviews have concluded that rBGH hormone levels in retail milk remain within ranges considered safe for consumers.

However, 95% of soy marketed for human consumption is genetically modified, raising other ethical and unknown longer-term health risk considerations (8).Plant-based milks may contain trace metals such as aluminium, typically introduced through processing aids, water sources, equipment, or migration from packaging rather than from the plants themselves (12). European risk assessments indicate that total dietary exposure to aluminium and other trace contaminants from plant-based beverages is well below tolerable intake thresholds for the general population. However, frequency and cumulative effects may leverage those risks. Overall, current evidence from regulatory monitoring suggests that both dairy and plant-based milks in Europe and North America contain only low levels of contaminants within established safety margins.

Health risks: Animal vs plants
Oatly is considered a processed food, with an oat base (water, oats), containing 2% or less of: low erucic acid rapeseed oil, dipotassium phosphate, calcium carbonate, tricalcium phosphate, sea salt, dicalcium phosphate, and fortified with riboflavin (B2), vitamin A, vitamin D2, vitamin B12. A fairly recent investigative report by Jeff Nobbs analysing the ingredients in Oatly to determine whether it’s a healthy plant-based milk alternative (19), concluded that Oatly has a blood sugar (glycemic) response higher than glucose, the rapeseed oil found in Oatly is potentially harmful (I add: if consumed frequently with other processed seed oil containing products), and that the inclusion of phosphate additives is potentially problematic (13).

Additionally, Nobbs found about 7 grams of added sugar per ~240ml of Oatly milk, even though there is no added sweetener in their ingredients list, which raises the question: where does all that sugar come from? The only carbohydrate source is oats, a grain that is actually naturally very low in sugar. As it turns out, the ‘added sugar’ in Oatly appears to originate from their manufacturing processes, where enzymes are added to break down the oat starch into simple sugars, primarily maltose [1]. Maltose has a very glycemic index (GI) of 105. For context, white flour and doughnuts have a glycemic index of 85 and 75, respectively. The glycemic index is a scale from 0 to 100 giving an approximate impact on blood sugar levels. Although maltose has a high impact on blood sugar levels, the true glycemic scale of Oatly may be a bit more modest at a 77GI and a glycemic load (GL) of 18.4. The GL is a way of estimating how much a serving of a given food raises your blood sugar.

Over time the cumulative load (excessive drinking) matters, which could contribute to a number of health issues, and predispose tooth decay, whilst unsweetened dairy tends to have a protective or neutral effect on tooth health as Casein proteins in dairy can form a protective film on teeth, buffering acids, whilst lactose is less cariogenic (the propensity to tooth decay) than many free sugars (13). A ~35o ml glass of oat milk (the amount used in a medium latte) has roughly the same effect on blood sugar as a ~350 ml can of Coke.

Conversely, Increased exposure to IGF-1 from cow’s milk, is linked to higher risk of cancers (13), particularly breast and prostate, although these findings are associational and not directly casual. These risks do not appear to be present with consumption of yogurt and other dairy products, such as cheese, as they their IGF-1 expression is lower than in milk. Conversely, regular consumption of plant-based products such as soy has been evidenced to interfere with thyroid function (14), whilst oxalates and phytic acid present in oat or almonds (15), may form insoluble complexes with minerals such as magnesium or calcium, reducing absorption and bioavailability of these micronutrients. Plant-milks are generally better tolerated than animal-based milks due to their lack of lactose, this is an area where I have helped a lot of clients, get in touch with me if you have a lactose intolerance issue.

Brown rice has also been shown to have higher levels of arsenic which may also transfer to their ‘milk’ products, and levels in some rice milk products have even exceeded drinking water standards in small tests (16). Higher dietary exposure to arsenic (e.g., via rice consumption) has been associated with elevated risks of several cancers, especially skin, bladder, lung, liver and kidney cancers. Other health outcomes linked to chronic inorganic arsenic intake include cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, neurological effects, and developmental effects in children (17).

However both animal and plant-based milk alternatives have been linked to a toxic herbicides sprayed to crops known as glyphosate, which can be minimised or eliminated by choosing organic varieties. I recently wrote a blogpost about the potential health risks of glyphosate exposure, read that blogpost HERE.

Conclusions
The legal decision involving Oatly illustrates a broader challenge of how to regulate language in a way that protects consumers without stifling innovation. The science suggests that what matters most is not whether a beverage is called ‘milk,’ but whether consumers understand its nutritional profile and how it fits into a balanced diet. Clear labelling, transparent fortification, and better public education may ultimately be more important than strict naming rules. For consumers, the key question is less about terminology and more about nutritional equivalence: what nutrients does the drink provide, and what might need to be obtained elsewhere in the diet? It is within this context that my expertise comes to shine, and I can help you make better choices to optimise your health and reduce the risks of health complications down the line. Get in touch to work with me.

Contact me