• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

Michelle's blog

Food allergy and food intolerance, freefrom foods, electrosensitivity, this and that...

  • Home
  • Blog
  • About
  • FreeFrom Food Awards
  • Foods Matter
  • Walks & Gardens
  • Salon Music
  • Home
  • Blog
  • About
  • FreeFrom Food Awards
  • Foods Matter
  • Walks & Gardens
  • Salon Music

The dangers of so-called dairy-free ice cream

28/09/2011 //  by Michelle Berridale Johnson//  4 Comments

There has long been a disconnect between terminology used by ‘experts’ and common parlance and for the most part this is a matter for humour rather than concern. But occasionally the disconnect can lead to confusion which can not only be dangerous but life threatening – and such is the case in the allergy world.

The term ‘allergy’ itself is interpreted very differently by the medical profession and the average man or woman in the street (more of this anon…) but ‘drilling down’ to specific allergies, the situation just become muddier. Take ‘dairy-free’, highlighted with reference to ‘ice cream’, on page 7 of  the Food Standards Agency’s most recent newsletter.

To the average punter – well certainly to me – ‘dairy-free’ would suggest free of the milk of all animals. No particularly good reason, but it just seems logical. But no, ‘dairy free’ only refers to cow’s milk  – so goat’s milk or buffalo milk is, technically ‘dairy-free’ even though it may have been ‘milked’ in a dairy… This could have implications for someone who was allergic to all animal milks (a not uncommon situation) but did not realise that a product marked ‘dairy free’ might contain goat, sheep or buffalo milk to which they could also react.

And then there is ‘milk’. To most people, milk is white and liquid and goes on cereals and in your tea. Whether it comes from a cow, a goat, a soya bean, an oat or a coconut, it looks the same and is, largely, used for the same purpose. So, would not the simplest way to differentiate between the different ‘milks’ be to require that they specify their origin e.g. cow’s milk, goat’s milk, soya milk, oat milk etc – which is how they are referred to in common parlance anyhow. But no. The term ‘milk’ can only be used in reference to the milk of mammals – cows, goats, camels, humans etc. ‘Milk’ made from anything else (a bean, a nut, a hemp seed) has to be referred to as a ‘dairy-free alternative to milk’ or as an almond or soya ‘drink’. Clumsy and inelegant as this may be, it does at least describe what is in the pack. But the situation with ‘ice cream’ is more risky.

As with milk, to the average punter an ice cream is a sweet food that is creamy and frozen, whether it is made from cow’s milk/cream, goat’s milk, soya, coconut or, as is the case with many of the cheaper ice creams, mainly from vegetable fats. They recognise the concept rather than the ingredients. So surely, as with milk, the trick would be to require the manufacturer to specify the origin of the product – cow’s milk ice cream, goat’s milk ice cream, soya ice cream, rice-based ice cream. But no – the term ‘ice cream’ can only, according to the Food Labelling Regulation 1996, be used for a product which contains a minimum of 2.5% milk protein. So no matter how creamy, decadent and delicious ‘alternative ice creams’ may be, they all have to be called ‘frozen desserts’ or ‘dairy-free frozen desserts’ (both of which could equally well refer to a cheesecake) or opt for some way out and totally unhelpful name such as BoojaBooja’s ‘Stuff in a Tub’.

Again, this is clunky and irritating but relatively harmless. Much less so is the possibility, highlighted by the FSA, that some manufacturers may make frozen ice cream-like products from dairy-free ingredients (such as soya) which would be safe for someone who was allergic/intolerant to animal milks, but include the minimum required amount of dairy protein (2.5%) to be allowed to call them ‘ice creams’ – so marketing them as ‘Dairy-free ice creams’.  In the extremely unlikely event that you were familiar with the arcane intricacies of labeling law, your antenna would prick up when you saw ‘dairy-free’ and ‘ice cream’ together in the same title, but a ‘normal’ dairy allergic/intolerant person should reasonably expect a product that is labelled ‘dairy free’ to be just that. Yet, 2.5% milk protein in a food could cause a dramatic, potentially even fatal, reaction in someone who was seriously allergic.

Of course it is easy to carp and I am well aware that drawing up these kinds of regulation is a nightmare job but I cannot help feel that, especially in this area, we are making our lives unnecessarily complicated and creating even more unwelcome hazards for those who have a problem with animal milks.

 

Category: Dairy-free, FreeFrom FoodTag: Allergy/intolerance, almond milk, animal milks, buffalo milk, coconut milk, cow's milk, Dairy-free, dairy-free ice cream, definition of dairy-free, Digestive conditions, Eczema/skin care, Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Agency guidelines, Food Standards Agency newsletter, Freefrom food/recipes, freefrom ice cream, goat's milk, sheep's milk, soy milk, what it means to be dairy free

Previous Post: « FreeFrom Food Seminar
Next Post: ‘Food allergies in children over-diagnosed’ »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Michelle Berriedale-Johnson

    29/09/2011 at 15:51

    I was called this morning by one of our gluten-free baking colleagues who had read my comments about milk terminologies and was still incandescent with rage over their experience with flour terminology.

    They had formulated a gluten free flour mix – a mix in the sense that it combined several different flours into one gluten-free flour. But their local trading standards officer wasn’t having any of it.
    He would not allow them to call it ‘flour’ because it was not a ‘conventional, edible flour’. (They pointed out that if you pulverised wood to dust you were allowed to call that ‘flour’ and that certainly was not edible, but that, apparently, was not relevant….) Finally they were stuck with ‘flour alternative’ and were then not allowed to call the food stuff that they had baked with their ‘flour alternative’ bread, but had to call it a ‘loaf’.

    The asininity of this (if there is such a word) is hugely compounded by the fact that each Trading Standards Authority is a law unto itself in these matters so that what goes in your region may not be even remotely acceptable in the next region along – and vice versa. This is especially infuriating in this sort of situation as you could find yourself having to call your product something ridiculously cumbersome and unhelpful while your competitor who operates in the next district, which is controlled by a more reasonable set of Trading Standards officers, is allowed to use the more intuitive and generally user friendly name or title.

  2. Ruth Holroyd

    03/10/2011 at 15:45

    Hi Michelle, do you know of any so-called dairy free ice creams that this labelling law has been used by? Are Swedish glace OK? They call themselves a non dairy frozen dessert so I’m hoping they are. Had unidentified reaction to it, or rather suspected that I had, a while ago… It would be handy to list any that included milk to share with people if there are any…

  3. michelle

    03/10/2011 at 17:10

    Hi Ruth – No, to be honest, I don’t. All the dairy-free ‘ice creams’ that I know of are very rigorous and all call themselves ‘dairy-free frozen desserts’ or some variation on that theme. However, I assume that they must exist, otherwise the FSA would not have highlighted the potential problem.

Trackbacks

  1. ‘Food allergies in children over-diagnosed’ says:
    30/09/2011 at 10:07

    […] with the milk saga about which I was inveighing in my last post – it is all down to semantics. What a health professional understands by an ‘allergy’ […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Colliding with a new reality – the hazards of low vision
  • Call for adult allergy sufferers
  • The vegan/allergy labelling issue
  • A gluten free Christmas just could be delicious – not a penance!
  • A food fad won’t kill you – an allergy will

Search this blog

ARCHIVES

Blogroll

  • Allergy Insight
  • Better brains, naturally
  • For Ever FreeFrom
  • Free From (gluten)
  • Freefrom Food Awards
  • Gluten-free Mrs D
  • Natural Health Worldwide
  • Pure Health Clinic
  • Skins Matter
  • The Helminthic Therapy Wiki
  • Truly Gluten Free
  • What Allergy?

TOPICS

A food fad won’t kill you – an allergy will

There has been a predictable outcry in the allergy world this week’s in response to Rachel Johnson’s piece in Thursday’s Evening Standard on ‘dietary requirements’ and food fads. Being charitable, I am assuming that she has never suffered from or lived with someone with a food allergy. However, I do have some sympathy with her …

Bioplastics – a solution or part of the problem?

Everyday Plastic is a social enterprise group using accessible learning and publicity campaigns to reduce the amount of plastics used daily in our society. It was founded by its current director Daniel Webb who, having moved to Margate in Kent in 2016, was horrified to discover that there were no plastic recycling options on offer.  …

FreeFrom Christmas Awards – the Winners

Since they were launched two years ago the FreeFrom Christmas Awards have been a great success. And how lucky are ‘freefrom-ers’ these days!  From Advent calendars to gifts, party food to Christmas dinner, there is no longer any need for them to miss out. Indeed, the whole family can happily eat freefrom and never know …

Do not extradite Julian Assange to the US

Julian Assange is being sought by the current US administration for publishing US government documents which exposed war crimes and human rights abuses. The politically motivated charges represent an unprecedented attack on press freedom and the public’s right to know – seeking to criminalise basic journalistic activity. Assange is facing a 175-year sentence for publishing …

What to believe – applying critical thought

For the average citizen evaluating the claims made for cure all – or even improve all – health products and procedures has always been difficult. Not only is it an area in which we have minimal expertise but most of us have a vested interest in finding a miracle intervention that will solve our health …

Could wireless monitoring devices be killing racehorses?

Regular readers may remember that back in August last year I alerted you to a posting on Arthur Firstenberg’s Cellphone Task Force site about phone masts and bird flu. Could there be a connection between the fact that the two wildlife sites in Holland and Northern France which had suffered catastrophic bird flu deaths were …

Site Footer

Copyright © 2025 · Michelle's Blog · Michelle Berridale Johnson · Site design by DigitalJen·