Vegan claims and allergen free

The Food and Drink Federation has just published guidance on ‘allergen free’ and vegan claims, with the stated aim of informing both the food industry and consumers of the difference between them and “to dispel any misunderstanding that a vegan claim automatically means a food product is safe and suitable for an allergic consumer”, rightly reminding us in the process that the two sets of claims are aimed at two different consumer groups.

You can read the guidance here. It is short — only two pages — non-technical and crystal clear. 

The guidance has been welcomed by the Food Standards Agency, the Anaphylaxis Campaign, and the Vegan Society

Following the case I reported last month of Galaxy Vegan chocolate — which is certainly not ‘free from’ — being stocked in the free from aisle at Tesco, I too welcome the issuing of this document. Perhaps large retailers who are in danger of losing sight of what the ‘free from’ aisle is supposed to be about and for whom it is supposed to be for will sit up and take notice. They need to. 

There’s a lot I like about the guidance document, including:

1/ The point is made that it’s not only milk and egg allergic people who ought not be reassured by a ‘vegan’ statement — but fish, crustacean and mollusc-allergic people too. A Vegan Society spokesperson told me some years ago that they wouldn’t rule out licensing their Trademark symbol to a brand whose product warned of a cross-contamination risk with seafood products.

2/ I really like the VEGAN ≠ ‘No Milk’ graphic. I think we need more of that. Perhaps some signs in ‘free from’ aisles?

3/ There’s a reminder that ‘dairy free’ does not imply ‘egg free’, and the wise point that ‘milk free’ is clearer and less confusing. (I’ve wondered for some time whether we should do away with the word ‘dairy’ in food allergen contexts. I think we should.)

4/ In the absence of ‘free from’ limits for food allergens or food components — as we have with gluten at 20ppm / 0.002% — a ‘free from’ claim ought to only be made when scientific detection limits for the allergen in question allow verification that levels are low enough to be safe.

But … I’m still unsure about the issue of actual legality of a vegan claim appearing with a ‘may contain non-vegan-food’ claim. As the guidance states:

“There is no legal definition of the term ‘vegan’ in UK or EU law, however General Food Law requires food to be safe and for its labelling or other presentation to not mislead consumers.”

When I spoke to the Food Standards Agency five years ago about this very issue for an article for the Foods Matter site, their Food Safety Policy Division spokesperson told me explicitly that it was indeed considered misleading.

Well, if it was misleading then, is it not still misleading now?

In all the discourse about this subject, there still seems to be a skirting around of this very obvious stumbling block. The FDF guidance touches upon it, but doesn’t answer it.

And let’s remember this: unlike the Vegan Society, The Vegetarian Society‘s vegan accreditation does NOT accept products with ‘may contain milk’ or ‘may contain egg’ — so there appears to be disagreement on this issue even among the animal ethic charities** (see footnote). 

DEFRA are now charged with developing general food labelling guidance post-Brexit, including for vegan and vegetarian labelling; it will be interesting to see what they finally come up with, and how much influence the Vegan Society might end up having on the outcome. 

** The Vegetarian Society turned out to be confused about the issue. See the post here


  1. James Powell

    I disagree that “Milk Free” is better than “Dairy Free” and as someone who has had a serious anaphylaxis allergy to this all of my life i actually think it should be the other way round.

    I personally think that the FSA need to rename the “Milk” allergy to a “Dairy” allergy instead. I actually think “Dairy Free” is much clearer than “Milk Free” is. Saying you are allergic to Dairy or have a Dairy allergy is much more widely understood by most people than saying that you are allergic to Milk or have a Milk allergy.

    You would be amazed at how many people there are out there (worryingly including people working in restaurants and other food industries) who do not understand that, Butter, Cheese, Cream, Yoghurt, etc, all come from Milk and therefore all contain Milk in them. I have met many people who have said that their foods does not contain any Milk in it despite containing, Butter, Cheese, Cream, Yoghurt, etc, in it. It is crazy (and very worrying) that so many people do not have this basic simple knowledge.

    Many people think “Milk” is just the liquid “Milk” drink but do not realise other products like, Butter, Cheese, Cream, Yoghurt, etc, are made from Milk so this is mainly where the problem is. I think calling it Dairy solves this as most people realise these other products are all Dairy as well.

    On the other hand most people understand the definition of Dairy much butter and are aware that Dairy means all, Butter, Cheese, Cream, Milk, Yoghurt, etc, so much less mistakes seem to be made regarding Dairy containing foods when you use the word Dairy instead. Of course it is not perfect and some people still make mistakes but in general i find that it is much safer to say you have a Dairy allergy than to say you have a Milk allergy. I think that the definition of Dairy is much better understood than the definition of Milk is.

    But i agree with the main topic of this post that Vegan products with a risk of contamination is an issue. Many people think that something being Vegan means that it is automatically safe but for many of these products a significant risk of contamination still exists. Of course for those who are simply Vegan this is not an issue but for those with an allergy it certainly is.

    1. Alex G (Post author)

      Interesting that you think this. I do think a decision has to be made as if not, confusion will remain. Problem is many think eggs count as ‘dairy’, and then we get into the problem of milk and milk products from animals which may not be commonly associated with a ‘dairy’, eg goats. As the ‘milk’ term is protected in law and named in allergen legislation, and dairy is not, I can’t see this changing …

      Thanks for your comment. Good to get a perspective from someone at the coalface, as it were!


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. Please read our Privacy Policy and our Affiliates Disclosure in 'About' more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.