How Australia and NZ rules on plant milks differ from overseas, where cows make the only ‘milk’

Last month, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court determined that plant-based drink maker Oatly could not trademark the phrase “Post Milk Generation” – effectively banning the use of the word “milk” on their cartons.

The decision marked the end of a long-running legal battle between the Swedish drink maker and Britain’s dairy industry. Dairy UK, representing the country’s dairy farmers, objected to Oatly trademarking the “post milk” phrase on the basis that the use of the term “milk” was deceptive.

The UK Supreme Court upheld Dairy UK’s case, citing UK regulations that limit “milk” to only being used to describe food derived from “mammalian secretions”. In the UK and European Union, only cow’s milk can be called “milk”.

But what are the rules for plant-based drinks in Australia and New Zealand? And are consumers here confused by the word “milk” on everything from soy to almond and oat drink cartons?

What are other countries’ rules on ‘milk’ labelling?

The UK regulations referred to in the Oatly case were actually based on European Union rules, adopted by the UK before Brexit.

The EU regulations have been in place for more than a decade. The words “milk”, as well as other dairy words such as “cheese”, “butter”, and “cream”, are all banned from being used to describe plant-based products sold in the EU.

Under the EU rules, only cow’s milk can be called just “milk”. Any other species of mammal milk has to be identified – such as “sheep’s milk” or “goat’s milk”.

In contrast, in the United States some plant-based drinks are allowed to be labelled as “soy milk” or “almond milk” as those names have been established by common usage.

But there is a long-running bipartisan campaign to ban the word “milk” being used for anything other than dairy there, too.

Critics argue the US Food and Drug Administration has failed to enforce its own detailed standards, defining milk as “the lacteal secretion […] obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows”.

US Democrat Senator Tammy Baldwin, who’s led a nearly decade-long campaign, says:

calling non-dairy imitation products “milk” or “yogurt” that do not contain dairy and are instead from a plant, nut, or grain, hurts dairy farmers […] and causes consumer confusion about the nutritional value of dairy versus imitation products.

What’s allowed in Australia and NZ?

Demand for plant-based drinks has been growing in both Australia and New Zealand.

Australia and New Zealand have a shared food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). In 2016, the regulator updated the trans-Tasman Food Code to allow plant-based foods and drinks to use terms like milk.

Using soy milk as an example, the regulations say:

The context within which foods such as soy milk or soy ice cream are sold is indicated by use of the name soy; indicating that the product is not a dairy product to which a dairy standard applies.

That’s why you’ll see “almond milk” in Australia and New Zealand sold in supermarkets. Those same products have to be sold as almond “drink” in the EU and UK.

However, that decision has been under review again in recent years.

Consumer research on plant milks

One of the main concerns raised by the dairy industry is that using “milk” for plant-based drinks can mislead consumers. As Australian Dairy Farmers’ President Ben Bennett said last week:

Words matter. When consumers pick up a product labelled ‘milk’, it should come from a cow – not a marketing department.

Responding to those longstanding concerns, the food regulator undertook several studies, including a 2025 consumer research report, involving nearly 3,000 Australians aged 18 to 90 years.

That report found those consumers were generally able to quickly and confidently identify plant-based drinks from their dairy counterparts. It also showed Australians were largely aware of the nutritional value difference between dairy milk and plant-based products.