Any reason you conveniently left out the start of the sentence you’ve quoted? Because the bit you’ve left out changes the tone pretty significantly.
In this particular situation I’d deem positive confirmation to be something like a vegan certification, as opposed to the absence of something.
Combine the absence of milk from the ingredients on something advertising itself as butter with no other distinguishing information and that adds up to suspicion for me.
ITT: lots of people wondering why this is an issue at all when obviously butter contains milk.
It’s because the company can effectively print whatever they like for the name of the product with no regard to the actual ingredients. A consumer needs to know what they’re actually buying because of things like allergies and intolerances.
In this case, and depending on the severity of the allergy, that missing ingredient warning could cause someone a bad case of the farts or something as serious as anaphylactic shock.
This being said, I’d still agree that people not wanting to consume milk should stick to products with positive confirmation that it is milk-free.
Ok fine, yes you are correct in that you can’t advertise a packet of staples as a frozen turkey crown, but you’re also arguing about a different scope. Apologies for speaking like a human on lemmy and not some sort of weird internet law robot.
This is a demonstration of what I’m talking about. To save you the click, this pack of ‘deli fresh’ turkey breast makes no mention of the cornstarch, dextrose or vinegar listed on the ingredients label. ‘Deli fresh’ is itself artistic license, as the product is packaged in plastic and not being served fresh from a deli.