>If something is pareve it is safe for us to eat and that is the only point
>in discussing the designation.

However, the reverse is far from true.  There are many many foods which are
not pareve but which are perfectly safe, indeed in the UK, since foods don't
normally have a kosher classification, most foods are not pareve, yet a fair
proportion are perfectly safe.

The pareve marking is fairly good proof that something is milk free, its
absence is by no means proof that it contains milk.  There are many other
reasons for the absence of the pareve or other kosher classification.

So, whilst pareve = milk free is something that can be relied upon, not
pareve = contains milk is entirely fallible.

Arguing that something *must* contain milk, because it is not labelled
pareve is disingenious.

Megan