Allan Bernard | When ‘milk’ no longer means milk

Recently, social media has been flooded with debate over allegations that some restaurants and international meat suppliers have been substituting kangaroo tail for the far more expensive beef oxtail. Whether fact, fiction, or somewhere in- between, the controversy has sparked passionate discussions among Jamaicans at home and abroad about food authenticity, consumer trust, and the right to know exactly what we are eating.

Yet, while Jamaicans have been vigorously debating what may or may not be in their oxtail, a far more significant change to our food laws has passed with relatively little public discussion.

On May 22, the Senate debated amendments to the Jamaica Dairy Development Board Act. Among the changes approved were amendments that fundamentally alter how milk and dairy products are defined under Jamaican law.

Under the previous legislation, milk was specifically defined as milk obtained from cows, while dairy products were required to contain more than 50 per cent milk solids. The amended act changes both standards. Milk is now defined as milk derived from ‘any animal’, while the minimum milk content required for a product to qualify as a dairy product has been reduced to just five per cent.

These changes may appear technical, but they raise important questions about consumer protection, food standards, and the future direction of Jamaica’s agricultural sector.

FROM PRODUCTION TO DILUTION?

The Government has defended the amendments as a means of modernising the dairy industry, aligning Jamaica with international standards, encouraging diversification, and creating opportunities for goat and sheep farmers.

Diversification is a worthwhile objective. Goat milk, sheep milk, and other legitimate dairy streams may provide opportunities for rural development, agro-processing, and enhanced food security.

However, the legislation itself does not establish incentives, protections, or development mechanisms for these sectors. Instead, its most immediate effect is to significantly lower the threshold for what may legally be marketed as a dairy product.

This raises an important question: who benefits from reducing the milk requirement from over 50 per cent to only five per cent?

The amendment does not guarantee stronger farm-gate prices, increased local milk production, or greater investment in domestic dairy processing. What it does create is a pathway for highly processed dairy analogues, vegetable-fat blends, milk substitutes, and imported dairy derivatives to enter the market under the same broad classification as products derived primarily from genuine milk.

As a result, products containing only a small fraction of actual milk may now legally benefit from the credibility traditionally associated with dairy products.

If products containing only five per cent milk can legally qualify as dairy products, consumers may unknowingly purchase products that differ significantly from what they reasonably expect.

This concern is especially relevant in schools, hospitals, and institutional feeding programmes where nutritional quality is critical. Food security is not merely about availability; it is also about nutritional integrity. A country cannot claim to strengthen food security while simultaneously weakening the standards that define the quality of the food being consumed.

THE CULTURAL QUESTION

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the amendment is the decision to define milk as milk obtained from ‘any animal’.

Supporters argue that this reflects international standards and accommodates dairy sources beyond cattle. However, the wording raises legitimate questions that Parliament never fully addressed.

What exactly does ‘any animal’ mean? Which animals are contemplated? Who determines what qualifies, and what safeguards exist to govern future additions?

These questions matter because food is not merely a commodity. Food is culture, identity, and tradition.

Jamaicans possess deeply rooted cultural understandings about what animals are appropriate for human consumption and which animal-derived products form part of accepted dietary practices. While international standards can guide policy, they should not automatically override cultural realities, consumer expectations, and public confidence.

The issue is not opposition to innovation. Rather, it is the need to ensure that innovation occurs transparently, democratically, and with informed public consent.

A BETTER PATH FORWARD

Modernisation and diversification are worthy goals, but they should be pursued with greater precision.

If the Government’s intention was genuinely to expand recognition of goat milk and sheep milk, the legislation could have explicitly stated so. Instead of referring broadly to ‘any animal’, Parliament could have specified approved dairy animals and required future additions to receive parliamentary approval.

Likewise, policymakers could have established separate legal categories for dairy substitutes and emerging food technologies rather than diluting the definition of dairy itself.

A more balanced approach would include:

• Maintaining meaningful minimum milk-content requirements;
• Creating separate classifications for dairy substitutes and dairy analogues;
• Requiring clear front-of-package disclosure where products contain low milk content or substitute ingredients;
• Establishing specific, approved dairy-animal categories;
• Strengthening protections against misleading marketing practices; and
• Requiring country-of-origin labelling for imported dairy products.

Such measures would support innovation, while preserving transparency and consumer confidence.

If people are prepared to debate whether oxtail is really oxtail, then surely they should also be asking whether milk should still mean ‘milk’, whether dairy should still mean ‘dairy’, and whether food standards should evolve without robust public discussion. People want confidence that products are what they claim to be.

The Jamaica Dairy Development Board (Amendment) Act, 2026 may have passed Parliament, but the broader national conversation about food integrity, consumer rights, cultural identity, and agricultural development is only beginning. 

Allan Bernard is a People’s National Party senator.