Decision 2C_47/2025 of 27 March 2026 – Labelling of vegan products

The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that the term ‘milk’ may not be used in connection with vegan drinks – not even in a modified or ironic form. In the case of an oat drink bearing the label ‘SHHH… THIS IS NOT M[*]LK’, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the ban imposed by the Zurich Cantonal Laboratory. Even the stylised spelling, with a drop symbol in place of the ‘i’, is sufficient to give the impression of a reference to milk.

The court based its decision on its 2025 case law (decision 2C_26/2023), according to which terms such as ‘milk’, ‘cream’ or ‘yoghurt’ are protected designations for animal products under the Federal Act

on Foodstuffs and Consumer Products (Foodstuffs Act, FSA) and the Foodstuffs Ordinances. Such terms may only be used for products that are actually made from milk of animal origin.

Focus on differentiation and consumer protection

The Federal Supreme Court emphasises that the term ‘milk’ raises clear expectations among consumers – particularly with regard to nutritional value, composition and origin. A ‘negative claim’ (‘this is not milk’) does not alter this, because the connection to real milk is deliberately established. The decision provides legal certainty for manufacturers, inspectors and consumers and sends a further signal in favour of transparent labelling in the growing market for vegan alternatives.

Administrative procedures for the placing of foodstuffs on the market

The authorisation and supervision of foodstuffs in Switzerland is governed by the Ordinance on Foodstuffs and Consumer Goods (LGV; SR 817.02). The Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (BLV) is responsible for coordinating enforcement, whilst the cantons (e.g. the Zurich Cantonal Laboratory) carry out enforcement.

Anyone wishing to place a food product on the market must, in particular, ensure:

• that the labelling and advertising are not misleading (Art. 12 LGV),
• that no protected descriptions are misused (Art. 14 LGV),
• and that the product is safe for human health (Art. 8 ff. LGV).

Special provisions apply to so-called ‘novel foods’. Breaches result in a ban on placing the product on the market, as in the present case, sometimes accompanied by administrative proceedings up to the Federal Supreme Court.

International trend towards clear labelling

The Federal Supreme Court’s ruling is part of a European and international trend calling for a clear linguistic distinction between animal-based and plant-based foods. In the European Union, the term ‘milk’ is reserved exclusively for animal products under EU Regulation No 1308/2013. The same applies to terms such as ‘cheese’ or ‘butter’.

The European Commission and national authorities – such as the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) in Germany – emphasise the importance of uniform and transparent product labelling so as not to mislead consumers. The recent EU dispute over the terms ‘veggie burger’ or ‘veggie schnitzel’ shows that whilst legislators are granting more leeway for plant-based products, they are simultaneously drawing clear boundaries as soon as protected terms such as ‘milk’ are involved.

Switzerland – albeit as a non-EU member – thus follows a similar line to the EU: Consumer protection and legal certainty take precedence over creative wordplay in marketing.

Conclusion

The new ruling makes it clear: creativity in the marketing of vegan products has legal limits. Anyone selling plant-based alternatives must adhere to the labelling rules of food law – even if playful wordplay appears attractive from a marketing perspective.