Food labelling when it comes to "beliefs"

cormie

Hey folks,
Does anyone know how the law stands when it comes to labeling food in accordance with "belief"? I saw this article: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-wins-battle-vegan-free-13394478 which tells "that veganism as a belief is supported by the Human Rights Act 2010".

So how would this come into play in terms of labelling food as "vegan" when it's not I wonder?

I see that Halal/Kosher meat has to be labelled as so, for the opposite reason, to let people know the animal had a slightly extended (when put into perspective of their lifetime) period of suffering. What about labelling something as Halal/Kosher, when it's not, just to get Halal/Kosher customers though I wonder?

I'm guessing a food producer could find themselves in trouble if they labelled their food as vegan if there was milk in it as it's a common allergy, but what if they had honey in something, but still labelled it vegan?

Any facts and references to statutes or cases would be appreciated

brynne

I'm not sure about the 'law' in terms of vegan food labelling but, as a non-dairy-eating vegetarian, I would say to you that it's important to be aware of the difference between someone that follows a vegan diet, i.e. they don't eat any animal products, and 'veganism' as a belief, whereby someone follows the whole anti-animal-exploitation ethos in its entirety. A true vegan will not, for instance, eat produce that relies on artificial pollination by bees (avocados, etc.), keep pets, support sports involving animals, wear silk, or drink from bone china cups, etc., etc. So, in terms of food labelling, you're probably only concerned with whether or not something contains animal-derived ingredients.

Mind you, even this can be a minefield. I provide a light lunch for my all-day classes. They're naturally vegetarian, since everyone can eat vegetable soup, fresh baked bread and cake. However, if I ever have a vegan in the class, I'll go out of my way to buy vegan ingredients. I find that even chocolate labelled as 'vegan' carries the disclaimer that it MAY contain traces of dairy, since it it produced in the same factory as other, non-vegan, chocolates ...

Anyway, good luck in your new venture.

cormie

Thanks for the reply. From speaking to others, it seems like a pretty complicated issue as there's no legal definition of what vegan is. The "may contain traces of" and "made in a factory that handles.." are really up to the individual when it comes to veganism, unless of course there's allergy issues.

I think with the likes of gluten free stuff, something can't be labelled GF if there's a risk of cross contamination, even oats, which are naturally GF, are mostly harvested with the same machinery that's used to harvest grains with gluten. There are oats labelled as gluten freefor sale, but are generally more expensive.

Veganism itself is a philosophy, it doesn't claim perfection, just doing what is possible and practicable to avoid harm, so the avocado thing for example, would be covered here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6jLxDZJ3z0

This query is really just about ingredients though and how the labels vs ingredients are perceived legally.

If you frequently have to cater for vegans, well vegan food is in general all good with everyone, so you could just switch to 100% vegan, you may even find you get more business this way? There could be issues with allergens in what you're serving if you have any customers with allergens, but that's a different situation altogether, but vegan and gluten free, is generally all good with the vast, vast majority

duploelabs

cormie wrote: »

Hey folks,
Does anyone know how the law stands when it comes to labeling food in accordance with "belief"? I saw this article: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-wins-battle-vegan-free-13394478 which tells "that veganism as a belief is supported by the Human Rights Act 2010".

So how would this come into play in terms of labelling food as "vegan" when it's not I wonder?

I see that Halal/Kosher meat has to be labelled as so, for the opposite reason, to let people know the animal had a slightly extended (when put into perspective of their lifetime) period of suffering. What about labelling something as Halal/Kosher, when it's not, just to get Halal/Kosher customers though I wonder?

I'm guessing a food producer could find themselves in trouble if they labelled their food as vegan if there was milk in it as it's a common allergy, but what if they had honey in something, but still labelled it vegan?

Any facts and references to statutes or cases would be appreciated

As a food producer, food labelling is a complete minefield and is generally at the direction of the EHO of the area of which the food is produced.
With regards to veganism, the onus is on the consumer to enquire if the food is vegan or not as you pointed out that some vegans consider honey not Vegan, and consequently by that narrative neither are Avocados, Kiwis, or Butternut squash.
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/avocados-butternut-squash-not-vegan-bbc-qi

So there are no EU directives on what is vegan or not for food labelling, the only requirement within that field is to say if the product contains any of the recognised allergens

cormie

Honey, by it's very nature can't really be considered vegan. There is however a school of thought that suggests, in order not to scare people away from the idea of veganism, not to create much fuss over honey in advocacy as people may think the overall philosophy is quite extreme and where they may have been one step closer to considering avoiding animal flesh and secretions, this may make them take 2 steps back. If communicated properly, then it's fully understandable why honey is an issue too, but communication is a skill that not many have mastered. The same can't really be said for avocados etc, as quoted from the article you linked to:

"But The Vegan Society disagrees with QI's branding of these items as non-vegan. "Vegans avoid using animals as far as possible and practicable," spokesperson Dominika Piasecka told Plant Based News.

"We are aware that many forms of farming involve indirect harm to animals but it is unfortunately not possible or practicable to avoid the destruction of other animals in most farming at this time.

"However, we do not consider that just because it is not possible to avoid one hundred percent of the cruelty, suffering and exploitation to animals that we should not bother at all.

"Vegans make a huge contribution to the reduction in suffering and death caused to animals and we would welcome any changes made to farming practises that support this.""

So something with honey shouldn't really be labelled vegan, but the same can't really be said with regards fruit and veg.

gozunda

cormie wrote: »

Hey folks,
Does anyone know how the law stands when it comes to labeling food in accordance with "belief"? I saw this article: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-wins-battle-vegan-free-13394478 which tells "that veganism as a belief is supported by the Human Rights Act 2010".

So how would this come into play in terms of labelling food as "vegan" when it's not I wonder?

I see that Halal/Kosher meat has to be labelled as so, for the opposite reason, to let people know the animal had a slightly extended (when put into perspective of their lifetime) period of suffering. What about labelling something as Halal/Kosher, when it's not, just to get Halal/Kosher customers though I wonder?

I'm guessing a food producer could find themselves in trouble if they labelled their food as vegan if there was milk in it as it's a common allergy, but what if they had honey in something, but still labelled it vegan?

Any facts and references to statutes or cases would be appreciated

The equality act 2010 (UK) makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone because of religion or belief. It does not specifically mentions 'veganism' afaik

Lol - I would suggest not believing everything you read literally ...

Is there a food manufacturer youve in mind that might "be in trouble" ???

Looks more like a trade description issue tbh
..

gozunda

cormie wrote: »

Honey, by it's very nature can't really be considered vegan. There is however a school of thought that suggests, in order not to scare people away from the idea of veganism, not to create much fuss over honey in advocacy as people may think the overall philosophy is quite extreme and where they may have been one step closer to considering avoiding animal flesh and secretions, this may make them take 2 steps back. If communicated properly, then it's fully understandable why honey is an issue too, but communication is a skill that not many have mastered. The same can't really be said for avocados etc, as quoted from the article you linked to: So something with honey shouldn't really be labelled vegan, but the same can't really be said with regards fruit and veg.

So where fruit and vegetables have been grown and produced with the use of insecticides and the eradication of other animals eg rabbits and this is a well known factor in that production - should those foods be labelled vegan?

duploelabs

I honestly don't think this thread is relevant to this sub

cormie

gozunda wrote: »

The equality act 2010 (UK) makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone because of religion or belief. It does not specifically mentions 'veganism' afaik

Lol - I would suggest not believing everything you read literally ...

Is there a food manufacturer youve in mind that might "be in trouble" ???

Looks more like a trade description issue tbh
..

Do you do a daily search on threads with "vegan" in them? :pac:

There are 9 grounds of discrimination that is prohibited including gender, disability and family status and religion (which includes creed and secular beliefs).

There have been cases won against Poland and Romania where inmates were refused vegetarian meals based on their beliefs. I assume so that based on creed and secular beliefs being covered, that veganism would fall under the same laws.

I've also been informed that a legal definition of veganism may be on the cards for the EU in 2020.

I started this thread to get info based on what food producers and businesses need to be aware of when dealing with beliefs.

gozunda wrote: »

So where fruit and vegetables have been grown and produced with the use of insecticides and the eradication of other animals eg rabbits and this is a well known factor in that production - should those foods be labelled vegan?

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

There's no way to live without causing harm to other life, it's a way of seeking to reduce this as best as we can where possible and practicable.

duploelabs wrote: »

I honestly don't think this thread is relevant to this sub

It's very relevant given that food labelling is such an important issue.

gozunda

cormie wrote: »

Do you do a daily search on threads with "vegan" in them? :There are 9 grounds of discrimination that is prohibited including gender, disability and family status and religion (which includes creed and secular beliefs).There have been cases won against Poland and Romania where inmates were refused vegetarian meals based on their beliefs. I assume so that based on creed and secular beliefs being covered, that veganism would fall under the same laws.I've also been informed that a legal definition of veganism may be on the cards for the EU in 2020.I started this thread to get info based on what food producers and businesses need to be aware of when dealing with beliefs."Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."There's no way to live without causing harm to other life, it's a way of seeking to reduce this as best as we can where possible and practicable. It's very relevant given that food labelling is such an important issue.

I think Cormie that you're unused to how new threads on Boards are listed no?

What you are referring to with ingredients relates to trade descriptions and food labeling legislation. Not 'discrimination'. You dont think that proper religions havn't covered this ground already?

And before getting all preachy again it remains that the majority of food production comes with the knowledge that other organisms and animals will be harmed during cultivation and processing. Ignoring that or otherwise is irrelevant imo

cormie

gozunda wrote: »

I think Cormie that you're unused to how new threads on Boards are listed no?

What you are referring to with ingredients relates to trade descriptions and food labeling legislation. Not 'discrimination'. You dont think that proper religions havn't already covered this ground already?

And before getting all preachy again it remains that the majority of food production comes with the knowledge that other organisms and animals will be harmed during cultivation and processing. Ignoring that or otherwise is irrelevant imo

You've been in every thread that I've seen vegan mentioned since the sheep one



"The Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 (‘the Acts’) prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods and services, accommodation and education.", you're right, this would fall under descriptions and not discrimination, but as incorrect labelling could fool people into doing something they don't agree with, I'm wondering how it is seen by the law in terms of food production


Yes, animals and organisms get harmed in food production, it's unfortunate.

We have a choice to buy food that's been produced with no intention to harm other lives, or to buy food where other lives have been intentionally harmed and consciously consume parts/secretions of the dead/abused animals.

I'm really just looking for info on the labelling issue here though gozunda.

duploelabs

cormie wrote: »

Do you do a daily search on threads with "vegan" in them? :pac:

There are 9 grounds of discrimination that is prohibited including gender, disability and family status and religion (which includes creed and secular beliefs).

There have been cases won against Poland and Romania where inmates were refused vegetarian meals based on their beliefs. I assume so that based on creed and secular beliefs being covered, that veganism would fall under the same laws.

I've also been informed that a legal definition of veganism may be on the cards for the EU in 2020.

I started this thread to get info based on what food producers and businesses need to be aware of when dealing with beliefs.



"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

There's no way to live without causing harm to other life, it's a way of seeking to reduce this as best as we can where possible and practicable.



It's very relevant given that food labelling is such an important issue.

No it's not, food labelling is governed by legislation. Veganism isn't a definied within legislation as there are fuzzy areas as to what is or not Vegan as detailed above.
If you're to parallel it along the lines of 'Organic', there is no legislative accreditation to govern this and any crest to say it is given (if you pay a fee and do a lot of due diligence) by a private body

You can certainly put Vegan on your food products, as I do on mine, but as I said before that is at the discretion of your EHO

gozunda

cormie wrote: »

You've been in every thread that I've seen vegan mentioned since the sheep one* "The Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 (‘the Acts’) prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods and services, accommodation and education.", you're right, this would fall under descriptions and not discrimination, but as incorrect labelling could fool people into doing something they don't agree with, I'm wondering how it is seen by the law in terms of food production :)Yes, animals and organisms get harmed in food production, it's unfortunate.We have a choice to buy food that's been produced with no intention to harm other lives, or to buy food where other lives have been intentionally harmed and consciously consume parts/secretions of the dead/abused animals.I'm really just looking for info on the labelling issue here though gozunda.

Yes many posters do post in various threads they have an interest in such as food and farming eg 'sheep'. This is a discussion board.

You posed some query about food labelling. Other posters and myself have already pointed out that discrimination does not apply.
As to your 'no Intention to harm' that is irrelevant fyi to the animal or organsim deliberatly killed during 'vegan' food production processes. For example spraying insecticides is deliberate and with the intention of protecting crops and fruit from pest damage. Perhaps you might be best considering an organic route if this is your concern for example.

Have you a specific business venture regarding labelling in mind that may be relevant and that can be answered?

*I honestly think you may be mixing things up there. Btw I took a look at your posts and note you've only started posting about these type of issues. Perhaps you are not familar with more regular posters? On your recent 'vegan deals' thread you started that contained alot of the same stuff - I have no posted comments - You're 'every thread' is certainly incorrect.

cormie

duploelabs wrote: »

No it's not, food labelling is governed by legislation. Veganism isn't a definied within legislation as there are fuzzy areas as to what is or not Vegan as detailed above.
If you're to parallel it along the lines of 'Organic', there is no legislative accreditation to govern this and any crest to say it is given (if you pay a fee and do a lot of due diligence) by a private body

You can certainly put Vegan on your food products, as I do on mine, but as I said before that is at the discretion of your EHO

Isn't it against the law to label something organic if it doesn't meet these requirements though: https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/organic_foodstuffs/organic_labelling_principles.html

As mentioned, there is set to be a definition of veganism within the EU by 2020... so although it may be the case now that certain things are ambiguous within the definition, I think it's still relevant in the most relevant forum for food producers/businesses.

gozunda wrote: »

Yes many posters do post in various threads they have an interest in such as food and farming. This is a discussion board.

You posed some query about food labelling. Other posters and myself have already pointed out that discrimination does not apply.
As to your 'no Intention to harm' that is irrelevant fyi to the animal or organsim deliberatly killed during 'vegan' food production processes. For example spraying insecticides is deliberate and with the intention of protecting crops and fruit from pest damage. Perhaps you might be best considering an organic route if this is your concern for example.

Have you a specific business venture regarding labelling in mind that may be relevant and that can be answered?

*I honestly think you may be mixing things up there. Btw I took a look at your posts and note you've only started posting about these type of issues. Perhaps you are not familar with more regular posters? On your recent 'vegan deals' thread you started that contained alot of the same stuff - I have no posted comments - You're 'every thread' is certainly incorrect.

You mentioned discrimination first My question was just with regards to conveying correct and accurate information in labelling

Exactly as you said, spraying crops is done with the intention of protecting crops and fruit, not with the intention of killing the animals.

Sorry, but this thread is really just to find out specifics in terms of labelling, but to respond...

My "every thread" isn't incorrect, I stated it's only threads that I've seen... in my bargain alerts thread, you did post, but it was subsequently removed by the mod for being off topic, it still shows in your post history:



Also I haven't only recently show interest in this area.

It took me 20 seconds to go to my profile, search more posts by me and find posts from several years back and these are only from the one forum:

2012: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81891675&postcount=46

2015: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93863462&postcount=3

gozunda

cormie wrote: »

...you mentioned discrimination first. My question was just with regards to conveying correct and accurate information in labelling .Exactly as you said, spraying crops is done with the intention of protecting crops and fruit, not with the intention of killing the animals. Sorry, but this thread is really just to find out specifics in terms of labelling, but to respond...My "every thread" isn't incorrect, I stated it's only threads that I've seen... in my bargain alerts thread, you did post, but it was subsequently removed by the mod for being off topic, it still shows in your post history:..Also I haven't only recently show interest in this area.It took me 20 seconds to go to my profile, search more posts by me and find posts from several years back and these are only from the one forum:

I think that is hair splitting tbh. You referred to the "Human Rights Act 2010". There is no such act of that year. It was pointed out that the relevant act of that year is "The equality act 2010 (UK)" which relates to the issue of discrimitation etc. Spraying etc is done with the sole purpose of killing organisms and protecting crops hence the use of the term 'cide' (eg as in homocide / patricide etc etc). I think perhaps you would be better of considering organic labelling if that is your primary concern with regard to ingredients etc. Btw the solictiude regards where I post is bizarre if also touching. It remains I've no posted comment in the thread detailed. Again you are incorrect - I saw that it was more of the same recent posts- I myself removed the comment.

Back to the issue - I don't see how you suggest
"food producers could find themselves in trouble"as that makes no sense as you dont seem to have any concrete or specific idea regarding such labelling. Have you a specific business venture regarding labelling in mind that may be relevant and that can be answered?
Of note - this is the most relevant Irish legislstion / regulation relating to food labelling that may be of interest to whether you are a food producer or consumer

https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/food_information_fic/food_information-fic.html

https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/food_information_fic/general_fic_provisions.html

As far as I can see there is no mention of moralistic leanings or 'beliefs' within that legislation

cormie

gozunda wrote: »

I think that is hair splitting tbh. You referred to the "Human Rights Act 2010". There is no such act of that year. It was pointed out that the relevant act of that year is "The equality act 2010 (UK)" which relates to the issue of discrimitation etc. Spraying etc is done with the sole purpose of killing organisms and protecting crops hence the use of the term 'cide' (eg as in homocide / patricide etc etc). I think perhaps you would be better of considering organic labelling if that is your primary concern with regard to ingredients etc. Btw the solictiude is bizarre if also touching. It remains I've no posted comment in the thread detailed. Again you are incorrect - I saw that it was more of the same recent posts- I myself removed the comment.

Back to the issue - I don't see how you suggest
"food producer could find themselves in trouble"
as that makes no sense as you dont seem to have any concrete or specific idea regarding such labelling. Have you a specific business venture regarding labelling in mind that may be relevant and that can be answered?
Of note - this is the most relevant Irish legislstion / regulation relating to food labelling that may be of interest to whether you are a food producers or consumer

https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/food_information_fic/food_information-fic.html

https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/food_information_fic/general_fic_provisions.html

As far as I can see there is no mention of moralistic leanings or 'beliefs' within that legislation

I quoted the article, if the article incorrectly referred to the equality act of 2010 as the human rights act, then so be it. I'm not claiming to know much about either, hence the reason for posting


The aim with protecting the crops is to... protect the crops... Even you yourself are suggesting organic as a way to reduce harm, so I'm sure you can see the difference and don't think protecting crops is on the same level as intentionally breeding animals to exploit them as much as possible during their life and eventually kill and consume them for taste/texture/entertainment/culture/societal reasons. I don't know what you find so bizarre about wanting to minimise the harm and suffering caused to other life? If you realise you're about to step on a snail, I think most of us instinctively reposition our downward step to avoid them!

So I'm incorrect to assume, although not unreasonably, that your post was removed by a mod. My statement "You've been in every thread that I've seen vegan mentioned since the sheep one" remains correct, since you HAVE been in that thread.



No, I don't have any concrete or specific idea regarding labelling which is why I said "I'm guessing a food producer could find themselves in trouble"

It's a general question on labelling with regards to belief and how a certain label can make a consumer assume things about the product, even though there's no legal definition of what that label means.

I mean what if someone was to put "vegan" on a packet, but the ingredients listed milk and somebody with a dairy allergy assumed that because the vegan label was there, that there was no dairy in the product, and they had an allergic reaction. Could this leave the producer open to sanction?

Thank for the links, this is taken from the pdf:

2. Food information provided on a voluntary basis shall meet the
following requirements:
(a) it shall not mislead the consumer, as referred to in Article 7;
(b) it shall not be ambiguous or confusing for the consumer; and
(c) it shall, where appropriate, be based on the relevant scientific data.
3. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts on the application
of the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article to the
following voluntary food information:
(a) information on the possible and unintentional presence in food of
substances or products causing allergies or intolerances;
(b) information related to suitability of a food for vegetarians or vegans;

That makes it sound like using such a label, would bring about problems in such a case.

duploelabs

Cormie,

We've established that you're motivated about the subject, but shouting here and being a smartr$e about the replies isn't going to change legislation, gain active engagement, nor win you any friends.
If you had any understanding or experience about the nature of food labelling and legislation would reveal that you're on a fools errand here

gozunda

cormie wrote: »

I quoted the article, if the article incorrectly referred to the equality act of 2010 as the human rights act, then so be it. I'm not claiming to know much about either, hence the reason for posting The aim with protecting the crops is to... protect the crops... Even you yourself are suggesting organic as a way to reduce harm, so I'm sure you can see the difference and don't think protecting crops is on the same level as intentionally breeding animals to exploit them as much as possible during their life and eventually kill and consume them for taste/texture/entertainment/culture/societal reasons. I don't know what you find so bizarre about wanting to minimise the harm and suffering caused to other life? If you realise you're about to step on a snail, I think most of us instinctively reposition our downward step to avoid them!So I'm incorrect to assume, although not unreasonably, that your post was removed by a mod. My statement "You've been in every thread that I've seen vegan mentioned since the sheep one" remains correct, since you HAVE been in that thread.No, I don't have any concrete or specific idea regarding labelling which is why I said "I'm guessing a food producer could find themselves in trouble"
It's a general question on labelling with regards to belief and how a certain label can make a consumer assume things about the product, even though there's no legal definition of what that label means.I mean what if someone was to put "vegan" on a packet, but the ingredients listed milk and somebody with a dairy allergy assumed that because the vegan label was there, that there was no dairy in the product, and they had an allergic reaction. Could this leave the producer open to sanction?
Thank for the links, this is taken from the pdf:
That makes it sound like using such a label, would bring about problems in such a case.

Cormie tbh you seem more interested in again splitting hairs - pushing beliefs- arguing rather than reading what is posted. As to why you keep harping on about a sheep thread in AH and where or how you think other posters can post - who knows? I dont.

I'm out thanks.

brynne

cormie wrote: »

I mean what if someone was to put "vegan" on a packet, but the ingredients listed milk and somebody with a dairy allergy assumed that because the vegan label was there, that there was no dairy in the product, and they had an allergic reaction. Could this leave the producer open to sanction?

Cormie, this is becoming tedious. You've come right back to the point I made at the beginning - that things (chocolate, in the example I gave) labelled as vegan can often have contradictory labelling on them, if the product was made in a factory that also handles dairy - or whatever. Manufacturers are obliged to cover themselves for just that eventuality - vegan or not vegan! It's the same with nuts. The product might not contain them, but the manufacturer cannot guarantee that the ingredients haven't come into contact with them at some point in the process.

In the end, manufacturers are obliged only to label products accurately and honestly, and it's for the consumer to make the decision whether to buy - whether it's for reasons of belief or allergy.

duploelabs

brynne wrote: »

In the end, manufacturers are obliged only to label products accurately and honestly, and it's for the consumer to make the decision whether to buy - whether it's for reasons of belief or allergy.

No, we have to, by law, label our products if they contain one or more of the recognised allergens. There is no same legislation when it comes to labelling something if it is vegan or not

cormie

duploelabs wrote: »

Cormie,

We've established that you're motivated about the subject, but shouting here and being a smartr$e about the replies isn't going to change legislation, gain active engagement, nor win you any friends.
If you had any understanding or experience about the nature of food labelling and legislation would reveal that you're on a fools errand here

gozunda wrote: »

Cormie tbh you seem more interested in again splitting hairs - pushing beliefs- arguing rather than reading what is posted. As to why you keep harping on about a sheep thread in AH and where or how other posters can post - who knows? I dont.

I'm out thanks.

I've been trying to get the topic back to my original question as it's been derailed with questions such as insecticides and accidental and unintentional deaths in crop harvesting. Addressing these questions doesn't mean I'm shouting, pushing beliefs or arguing, I'm simply addressing what others are asking.

My original post mentioned an ingredient that is not considered vegan by this same organisation:

"Our Trademark is registered in Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and India and used worldwide on over 30,000 products. It represents the international standard for authentic vegan products - that makes it a must for any company seeking to widen its appeal, extend its marketing and increase sales."

brynne wrote: »

Cormie, this is becoming tedious. You've come right back to the point I made at the beginning - that things (chocolate, in the example I gave) labelled as vegan can often have contradictory labelling on them, if the product was made in a factory that also handles dairy - or whatever. Manufacturers are obliged to cover themselves for just that eventuality - vegan or not vegan! It's the same with nuts. The product might not contain them, but the manufacturer cannot guarantee that the ingredients haven't come into contact with them at some point in the process.

In the end, manufacturers are obliged only to label products accurately and honestly, and it's for the consumer to make the decision whether to buy - whether it's for reasons of belief or allergy.

My last question wasn't with regards to labels that say "may contain traces of" but as to whether there would be any problem if a manufacturer was to use the term "vegan" on the package, when milk was an actual main ingredient and not just a possible trace ingredient.

I mean, if that would pose a legal problem, then possibly honey like I mentioned in the original post, would also, from a legal perspective?

cormie

duploelabs wrote: »

No, we have to, by law, label our products if they contain one or more of the recognised allergens. There is no same legislation when it comes to labelling something if it is vegan or not

This is exactly the issue... so there's legislation surrounding allergens, but no legislation with regards to labelling something vegan or not.

So if you listed milk as a main ingredient on your package but ALSO had the word "vegan" listed, I'm guessing you could run into legal problems?

duploelabs

As I said before, 'vegan' isn't a protected term with regard to food labelling. And again, if you read my posts, the only person who can categorically advise on this is your EHO.

Shouting about it here and creating hypothetical questions isn't going to get you a straight answer as your local EHO is the only person who can say yes or no, and that varies depending on their own interpretation of the legislation which in turn varies from EHO to EHO

cormie

Thanks, so I'm guessing in the same vein, that would then leave it up to the discretion of the judge, if a food producer was then to be brought to court over such an incident.

I guess if veganism is eventually defined in EU legislation (in 2020 apparently) then that legislation would have to be followed.

duploelabs

cormie wrote: »

Thanks, so I'm guessing in the same vein, that would then leave it up to the discretion of the judge, if a food producer was then to be brought to court over such an incident.

I guess if veganism is eventually defined in EU legislation (in 2020 apparently) then that legislation would have to be followed.

Brought to court??? Are you for real? No they'll never get brought to court.
Again, if you'd any understanding of how the business works, even from the outside looking in, you'd know this is never the case.
If a food label is incorrect, a recall is issued. The majority of the monthly fsai incident reports contain a recall regarding this.

I suggest you gain at least a working knowledge of how the business operates, and the hoops and jumps we have to go through before a product gets to market, then you can start working your agenda in to it

cormie

That's why I'm asking on a forum and guessing as to what would happen in such a case?

I would have thought that if a producer put a vegan label on a packet, and somebody with a dairy allergy assumed there was no dairy in it based on this label, when dairy was one of the main ingredients (not just a possible trace) and that they subsequently ended up in hospital, it could end up in court. I've heard of lesser things end up in court, but again, I'm by no means knowledgeable on the subject so just asking here from a business and legal perspective, nothing to do with any agenda

duploelabs

cormie wrote: »

That's why I'm asking on a forum and guessing as to what would happen in such a case?

I would have thought that if a producer put a vegan label on a packet, and somebody with a dairy allergy assumed there was no dairy in it based on this label, when dairy was one of the main ingredients (not just a possible trace) and that they subsequently ended up in hospital, it could end up in court. I've heard of lesser things end up in court, but again, I'm by no means knowledgeable on the subject so just asking here from a business and legal perspective, nothing to do with any agenda

You're citing an allergen that can cause harm in the case of dairy, if a vegan was to unwittingly eat non-vegan food nothing would happen to them, nor can it be retrospectively proven, and thus by extension, can it be enshrined in legislation.
For example, I have a range of desserts that fundamentally contain fresh fruit, sugar, some herbs and spices, and water.
Can I label them gluten-free? Yes, as I have a gluten free kitchen and the products can be tested by a third party body in a laboratory if they do or don't contain gluten.
Can I call them Vegan? Fundamentally yes, as detailed in ingredients above. Realistically no I can't, as I can't say that in the ingredient list that no animal was harmed in it's production, nor can a third party lab test if this is the case or not. And it's the latter point that will prevent Vegan being a legislated term within food labelling as it cannot be proven retrospectively through current methods

Confused1aaa

I work in a food manufacturer, at one stage we looked at producing a vegan suitable product, in order to declare it suitable for vegans we were advised that records of every batch were kept to show that there were no animal products used and before every production run the kitchen and equipment were to be checked with a protein reactive swab to ensure that there were no traces of meat. By labeling any product as suitable for a food belief it is up to you to be able to prove to any customer who questions it that it is compliant

gozunda

duploelabs wrote: »

Brought to court??? Are you for real? No they'll never get brought to court.
Again, if you'd any understanding of how the business works, even from the outside looking in, you'd know this is never the case.
If a food label is incorrect, a recall is issued. The majority of the monthly fsai incident reports contain a recall regarding this.

I suggest you gain at least a working knowledge of how the business operates, and the hoops and jumps we have to go through before a product gets to market, then you can start working your agenda in to it

Agreed. It would also appear that there is some evident angle to garner legal advice. From my own readings of threads here boards does not generally allow such advice do be either sought or offered afaik ...

Confused1aaa wrote: »

I work in a food manufacturer, at one stage we looked at producing a vegan suitable product, in order to declare it suitable for vegans we were advised that records of every batch were kept to show that there were no animal products used and before every production run the kitchen and equipment were to be checked with a protein reactive swab to ensure that there were no traces of meat. By labeling any product as suitable for a food belief it is up to you to be able to prove to any customer who questions it that it is compliant

That would be some can of worms (if you excuse the pun)

Cant see many non multi-nationals without deep pockets defending or taking that one on tbh ..

cormie

duploelabs wrote: »

You're citing an allergen that can cause harm in the case of dairy, if a vegan was to unwittingly eat non-vegan food nothing would happen to them, nor can it be retrospectively proven, and thus by extension, can it be enshrined in legislation.
For example, I have a range of desserts that fundamentally contain fresh fruit, sugar, some herbs and spices, and water.
Can I label them gluten-free? Yes, as I have a gluten free kitchen and the products can be tested by a third party body in a laboratory if they do or don't contain gluten.
Can I call them Vegan? Fundamentally yes, as detailed in ingredients above. Realistically no I can't, as I can't say that in the ingredient list that no animal was harmed in it's production, nor can a third party lab test if this is the case or not. And it's the latter point that will prevent Vegan being a legislated term within food labelling as it cannot be proven retrospectively through current methods

Thanks for that! I think the problem with dairy in particular, is that a lot of people may assume, with the word vegan, although not in any legislation, that a product wouldn't contain dairy. So even if a non vegan who had a dairy allergy, was to consume something advertised/labelled as vegan, when milk was a main ingredient, it's not that it's going against any ethical stance, but rather the fact it misled and confused the person into assuming based on that label, that there was no dairy in it (Imagine if they were ok with trace amounts but not for it to be one of the main ingredients).

I'm guessing with a non common allergy ingredient like honey, there's not as much to worry about from a repercussion point of view.

The dessert you mention would I'm sure be ok to label as vegan. Vegan doesn't mean, nor has it ever meant perfection and a way of living that results in NO harm to life:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

Confused1aaa wrote: »

I work in a food manufacturer, at one stage we looked at producing a vegan suitable product, in order to declare it suitable for vegans we were advised that records of every batch were kept to show that there were no animal products used and before every production run the kitchen and equipment were to be checked with a protein reactive swab to ensure that there were no traces of meat. By labeling any product as suitable for a food belief it is up to you to be able to prove to any customer who questions it that it is compliant

I'm guessing this is to get one of the approved trademark labels, such as that of the vegan society on the packaging?

cormie

gozunda wrote: »

Agreed. It would also appear that there is some evident angle to garner legal advice. From my own readings of threads here boards does not generally allow such advice do be either sought or offered afaik ...



That would be some can of worms (if you excuse the pun)

Cant see many non multi-nationals without deep pockets taking that one on tbh ..

I'm not seeking legal advice at all, just posing hypothetical situations out of curiosity like there are so many of in the legal forum


Cost wise, I think it varies from organisation, https://vegan.org/certification/ certs start from $150 per year.

duploelabs

cormie wrote: »

Thanks for that! I think the problem with dairy in particular, is that a lot of people may assume, with the word vegan, although not in any legislation, that a product wouldn't contain dairy. So even if a non vegan who had a dairy allergy, was to consume something advertised/labelled as vegan, when milk was a main ingredient, it's not that it's going against any ethical stance, but rather the fact it misled and confused the person into assuming based on that label, that there was no dairy in it (Imagine if they were ok with trace amounts but not for it to be one of the main ingredients).

I'm guessing with a non common allergy ingredient like honey, there's not as much to worry about from a repercussion point of view.

The dessert you mention would I'm sure be ok to label as vegan. Vegan doesn't mean, nor has it ever meant perfection and a way of living that results in NO harm to life:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."




I'm guessing this is to get one of the approved trademark labels, such as that of the vegan society on the packaging?

Again, this is a b*ll**** topic for this forum and again you do not read the points provided.

Allergens are listed on products because they can cause harm to the consumer, vegan products cannot be enforced legislatively as the criteria involved are far too wide ranging to execute for the legislators, far too troublesome for producers to enact, and far too confusing for the consumer.
Allergens are listed on packaging as they are quantifiable, 'discoverable', and enforceable should an incident take place and the consumer is injured from eating it only to discover there was an infringement.

I'm also guessing you're not based here considering you're quoting american bodies and not the ones based here.

cormie

I'm reading everything and have taken the information provided on board. I've also posed a scenario which has an uncertain outcome based on what's been posted so far. If it's uncertain what would happen in the scenario depicted, that's ok. I don't know what would happen either.

Again, it was simply a question of what would happen where both the allergy dairy was listed as a main ingredient and vegan was also stated on the packet. As in, does the term hold such little weight in law and legislation, that anyone can use it no matter what the ingredients are, without any fear of legal repercussion.

If say, Kosher, is in the same boat as vegan, without legal definition (again, I don't if this is the case - maybe it does have legal definition) and is portraying suitability for a belief, could any meat producer, stick Kosher on a packet, even though it doesn't meet the standards of that belief?


I'm based in Ireland, I did a quick google and got that price. I checked the vegan society and there's no pricing displayed.

pedroeibar1

Duplo as usual has given the correct ‘labelling’ answer.

Cormie, for openers your definition of veganism earlier in the thread is not generally accepted by a majority of vegans today. Is your interest in labeling due to a wish to make money out of it? It would be hard to do so on a large scale if you become an honest participant in that sector's production chain.

Take the latest ‘cult trend’ of vegan wine as an example. After fermentation wine is cloudy and remains in that state until it is clarified by age or an agent. The former takes a lot of a long time, only for the best wine, the latter until recently used an animal product for mass-market wines. That was either a product from dried blood (banned 1990’s?) by EU or using albumen i.e. egg-white which, when swirled in the liquid, gathers the particles and clarifies it. Cooks do the same to clarify stock. Even though that is removed, vegans still won’t accept wine using the last method, so a non-animal linked product is used. The wine is not any more special, possibly worse and costs considerably more. Vegans have gone one step further and now won’t buy wine where animal labour has been involved in the making process. Case in point – Chateau Latour, one of the handful of top wines in the world since the mid 1800’s. To prevent the ground being compacted and roots damaged between the vine rows by heavy machinery they instead use horse drawn equipment for ploughing, etc.. Use of horses does not meet the vegan standard (on animal cruelty), not that the Rothschilds are worried, given the huge demand and high price that wine commands! Even use of animal manure on a crop rules out acceptability for strict vegans.

Other than in religion, veganism in recent decades has been a fad particularly in the adolescent female sector (who have little money) and activists. It is a growing ‘trendy’ movement – particularly in the UK - that many believe has been kidnapped by those with agendas ranging through extremist animal rights activists, nutrition charlatans, nutters, petty criminals and even the Mafia.

In mainland Europe, particularly Italy, almost half of the many vegetables labelled ‘organic’ are not; most of the Italian olive oil labelled ‘extra virgin’ is doctored by cheap imported crap. Look at the scams surrounding miluka honey. Vegan labels or stamps will be the very same. I would not touch the sector with a bargepole, far too many cranks in it and life is much too short to deal with their vehemence. Even if they have a try-on law suit that they cannot win (edit), they are the type that will take it just for the PR and embroil you in a huge waste of time.

Pedro
(Who shoots, fishes and loves his veggies too.)

gozunda

duploelabs wrote: »

Again, this is a b*ll**** topic for this forum and again you do not read the points provided.

Allergens are listed on products because they can cause harm to the consumer, vegan products cannot be enforced legislatively as the criteria involved are far too wide ranging to execute for the legislators, far too troublesome for producers to enact, and far too confusing for the consumer.
Allergens are listed on packaging as they are quantifiable, 'discoverable', and enforceable should an incident take place and the consumer is injured from eating it only to discover there was an infringement.

I'm also guessing you're not based here considering you're quoting american bodies and not the ones based here.

It curious - but in many similar comments many of the sources posted from are freqently US based. The hugely litigious culture there coupled with very large food processing corporations means that potentially there's large amounts of money to be made from such scenarios. Statements that potentially 'food producers could find themselves in trouble' coupled with references of court cases etc makes me believe that there are some who would only be too happy to see similar here.

pedroeibar1

gozunda wrote: »

It curious - but in many similar comments many of the sources posted from are freqently US based. The hugely litigious culture there coupled with very large food processing corporations means that potentially there's large amounts of money to be made from such scenarios. Statements that potentially 'food producers could find themselves in trouble' coupled with references of court cases etc makes me believe that there are some who would only be too happy to see similar here.

The real problem is policing. There is very little, and when it is successfully used the miscreants walk free. That is the case in Italy and even in holy Ireland - look at our horsemeat/burger case, the pork feed scandal and a chicken relabeling scam. In the seafood sector Irish mussels that were known to be toxic were exported and destroyed that industry for several years. Many of these (pork & chicken) happened in Ballybay, and involved some of the same people. One family had been involved in a multi-million pork fraud in the 1980's - and walked free then also.

duploelabs

cormie wrote: »

Again, it was simply a question of what would happen where both the allergy dairy was listed as a main ingredient and vegan was also stated on the packet.

Again this hypothetical question is absolute steaming h*rsesh!t
Who on earth would be that stupid to invest thousands upon thousands euro on packaging design and printing to contradict themselves so blatantly? Can you cite examples? No i didn't think so

duploelabs

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Duplo as usual has given the correct ‘labelling’ answer.

Cormie, for openers your definition of veganism earlier in the thread is not generally accepted by a majority of vegans today. Is your interest in labeling due to a wish to make money out of it? It would be hard to do so on a large scale if you become an honest participant in that sector's production chain.

Take the latest ‘cult trend’ of vegan wine as an example. After fermentation wine is cloudy and remains in that state until it is clarified by age or an agent. The former takes a lot of a long time, only for the best wine, the latter until recently used an animal product for mass-market wines. That was either a product from dried blood (banned 1990’s?) by EU or using albumen i.e. egg-white which, when swirled in the liquid, gathers the particles and clarifies it. Cooks do the same to clarify stock. Even though that is removed, vegans still won’t accept wine using the last method, so a non-animal linked product is used. The wine is not any more special, possibly worse and costs considerably more. Vegans have gone one step further and now won’t buy wine where animal labour has been involved in the making process. Case in point – Chateau Latour, one of the handful of top wines in the world since the mid 1800’s. To prevent the ground being compacted and roots damaged between the vine rows by heavy machinery they instead use horse drawn equipment for ploughing, etc.. Use of horses does not meet the vegan standard (on animal cruelty), not that the Rothschilds are worried, given the huge demand and high price that wine commands! Even use of animal manure on a crop rules out acceptability for strict vegans.

Other than in religion, veganism in recent decades has been a fad particularly in the adolescent female sector (who have little money) and activists. It is a growing ‘trendy’ movement – particularly in the UK - that many believe has been kidnapped by those with agendas ranging through extremist animal rights activists, nutrition charlatans, nutters, petty criminals and even the Mafia.

In mainland Europe, particularly Italy, almost half of the many vegetables labelled ‘organic’ are not; most of the Italian olive oil labelled ‘extra virgin’ is doctored by cheap imported crap. Look at the scams surrounding miluka honey. Vegan labels or stamps will be the very same. I would not touch the sector with a bargepole, far too many cranks in it and life is much too short to deal with their vehemence. Even if they have a try-on law suit that they cannot win (edit), they are the type that will take it just for the PR and embroil you in a huge waste of time.

Pedro
(Who shoots, fishes and loves his veggies too.)

Dried blood banned??
The majority of black pudding uses dried, and I believe you've to have very special dispensation to use fresh

gozunda

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The real problem is policing. There is very little, and when it is successfully used the miscreants walk free. That is the case in Italy and even in holy Ireland - look at our horsemeat/burger case, the pork feed scandal and a chicken relabeling scam. In the seafood sector Irish mussels that were known to be toxic were exported and destroyed that industry for several years. Many of these (pork & chicken) happened in Ballybay, and involved some of the same people. One family had been involved in a multi-million pork fraud in the 1980's - and walked free then also.

As to your points - I would agree. Though these issues are fairly widespread globably. If I remember correctly the Ballybay case concerned Northern Ireland and cross border jurisdictions. Its not just meat products either - there have serious of cases of salad products and fruit etc contaminated with Samonella and Listeria across the EU and some of the major Supermarkets in the UK having been found selling fake herbs and condiments etc to consumers.

However I believe outside the issues of policing and such cases being prosecuted - there is now a seperate issue of legitimate food producers being targeted as part of movement towards promoting individual lifestyle choices. There was a very funny Halloween cartoon I saw - of a rather confused householder attempting to navigate the dangers of handing out treats to kids on specific diets. I'll see if I can find it ...

brynne

duploelabs wrote: »

No, we have to, by law, label our products if they contain one or more of the recognised allergens. There is no same legislation when it comes to labelling something if it is vegan or not

Apologies. My post was badly worded. In saying " ... vegan or non-vegan", I intended to mean that it was actually the allergy legislation that applied, regardless.

pedroeibar1

duploelabs wrote: »

Dried blood banned??
The majority of black pudding uses dried, and I believe you've to have very special dispensation to use fresh

Wine needs to be clarified or sometimes have certain tastes removed. The product used in this process is a ‘fining agent’ and almost all of them are animal or fish based. Inorganic ones exist but they remove too much other matter, including colour, aroma/bouquet and flavour, and are not favored. Dried blood was among the most frequent until the BSE scare when the EU and the US banned the use of blood as a fining agent. AFAIK the ban for use of bovine blood for any human foodchain product (e.g. feed for farmed fish) has not yet been lifted. Black pudding contains porcine dried blood, which, while very heavily regulated is not banned.

pedroeibar1

gozunda wrote: »

As to your points - I would agree. Though these issues are fairly widespread globably. If I remember correctly the Ballybay case concerned Northern Ireland and cross border jurisdictions. Its not just meat products either - there have serious of cases of salad products and fruit etc contaminated with Samonella and Listeria across the EU and some of the major Supermarkets in the UK having been found selling fake herbs and condiments etc to consumers.

However I believe outside the issues of policing and such cases being prosecuted - there is now a seperate issue of legitimate food producers being targeted as part of movement towards promoting individual lifestyle choices. There was a very funny Halloween cartoon I saw - of a rather confused householder attempting to navigate the dangers of handing out treats to kids on specific diets. I'll see if I can find it ...

There are two separate issues - listeria, salmonella, etc., 'happen', are inadvertent and are caught quickly. Dioxin (the pork scandal) and false labeling are 'caused' by fraud and criminality. The latter are much more common than the former. The Ballybay cases were pure criminality - the pork case in the 1980's was mis-labeling foreign pork as Irish; they chicken was worse, with frozen chicken from Thailand being thawd and packaged as Irish. It wasn't a Border issue.

There are agendas - Iceland (stores) was forced to pull its Christmas advert because it was deemed too political.

gozunda

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

There are two separate issues - listeria, salmonella, etc., 'happen', are inadvertent and are caught quickly. Dioxin (the pork scandal) and false labeling are 'caused' by fraud and criminality. The latter are much more common than the former. The Ballybay cases were pure criminality - the pork case in the 1980's was mis-labeling foreign pork as Irish; they chicken was worse, with frozen chicken from Thailand being thawd and packaged as Irish. It wasn't a Border issue.
There are agendas - Iceland (stores) was forced to pull its Christmas advert because it was deemed too political.

Regarding bacterial contamination - I would disagree that they just 'happen'. For example the Europewide contamination of cucumbers by salmonella has been ongoing since 2014 with cases being reported each year since.

Irrigation with sewage‐contaminated water (cases of Hepatitis A*) has also been linked to fruit such as berries. companies repacking imported berries and keeping origin information vague.
It is likley there are also elements of fraud or criminality in some of these food production methods. The packaging and sale of fake herbs, spices and condiments certainly is.

I'm not doubting any of the food fraud issues you've listed btw. Not to digress further - the point made is the very different issue of food producers being targeted by certain types of lifestyles extremists. These seem to be on the rise unfortunately.


*eg See https://www.fsai.ie/faq/frozen_berries.html