This week, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb indicated at a Politico event that the FDA would enforce its definition of the term “milk” and saying that “the question becomes, have we been enforcing our own standards of identity?”
The problem with Gottlieb’s stated interest in regulating the definition of milk, however, is that the FDA’s standards of identity are bad. The definition is overly narrow. This is the agency’s definition: “Milk is the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows.”
Two things are immediately clear. Not only does the FDA exclude things like soy milk and almond milk but also the wording narrowly limits actual animal milk to that produced by cows. That means that even things like goat’s milk or sheep’s milk couldn’t be called milk under these guidelines.
[Related: PETA wants plant-based drinks to ditch ‘four-letter-word’ milk]
That puts the governments definition at odds with the common and scientific understandings of milk which is understood as “a white liquid produced by the mammary glands of female mammals for feeding their young.”
Enforcing this limited concept of milk that is currently in the books is both unnecessary and unhelpful for consumers. This means that consumers who have become familiar with branding of products like soy milk would instead have to look for something like “soy juice” or “soy product.” Even more ridiculous, goat’s milk or sheep’s milk would have to be called something else — perhaps goat juice or goat liquid would please the FDA?
As for the FDA’s reasoning behind limiting what could be called milk, the agency says that customers might be confused. As in they think that someone looking to purchase cow’s milk might instead buy a product clearly labeled soy milk. I’m sorry, but that for anyone who has recently walked down the aisles of a grocery store, this is a lame argument. The difference between the two products is abundantly clear.
So why would the FDA do it? Well, cui bono? This move to enforce its outdated definition helps the dairy industry.
In short, the FDA is maneuvering to benefit dairy farmers who are afraid of competition from products like soy milk or almond milk. The sad reality is that this would only be an addition to government benefits, specifically subsidies, already enjoyed by dairy farmers.
The FDA should not further disrupt the market with an added benefit. Instead of using an existing and outdated regulation to serve the narrow, anti-competitive interests of the dairy industry, the FDA would be better served by getting rid of or, at the very least, revising outdated regulations. Clearly, a good place to start this process would be with the definition of milk, which is not only ridiculous, but, also, evidently, has the potential for abuse.
