In recent years, plant-based yogurt has gradually entered the consumer market, and has attracted the eyeballs of consumers with health concepts such as lactose-free and low-cholesterol. At present, the US, the EU and China all regulate plant yogurt as beverages. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has planned to formulate and release industry guidelines for plant-based milk and yoghurt, while EU regulations prohibit the use of the concept of plant-based yoghurt. In China, this concept has not been written into relevant national standards or industry standards. However, as a new product, plant-based yogurt has the advantages of plants themselves, and its nutritional value can be improved after fermentation. Therefore, relevant standards and regulations should be formulated as soon as possible to regulate the market. In this paper, by comparing the relevant regulations and standards of the US, the EU and China and in view of the particularity of plant-based yogurt, some suggestions on the management of regulations on plant-based yogurt are proposed.

The commercial food products with health claims of probiotics in China are mainly milk powder, yogurt, Lactobacillus containing beverage and probiotic powder. This research was concerned with the species of probiotics used and health claims of probiotics on the front and back sides of the packaging. A comparison of regulations on health claims of probiotics in China and abroad was carried out, and some suggestions for solving problems in the management of probiotic health claims were proposed. The results showed that different probiotics are used in various products. Modified milk powder generally contain 1–2 probiotic species, while Lactobacillus containing beverage, yogurt and probiotic powder mostly contained more than two probiotic species, some of them containing over ten probiotic species. The health claims of probiotic products mainly involve “probiotics”, “activity”, “name of strains”, “source of strains”, “amount of strains added and colony number”, “fermentation time”, “patent” and “intestinal health” on the front side of the packaging, and identical health claims or no health claims are made on the back side.

This paper reviews the current status of allergen labelling for domestic and imported dairy products and compares the domestic and oversea regulations on food allergen labelling. The aim is to put forward some suggestions on solving the problems existing in food allergen labelling management in China. Our comparison reveals that the rate of allergen labelling is very low for both domestic and imported dairy products and there are shortcomings in terms of location, terms and emphasis of contents. Furthermore, 60.0% domestic dairy products and 55.6% imported dairy products label the allergens below the ingredients. Foreign brands prefer to use "allergenic" or "sensitizing" as the leading terms in allergen descriptions. Only two brands at home and abroad emphasize allergen labelling using bold font or a different font color.