Kosher and vegan are different qualification questions, and the words non-dairy do not resolve either one on their own. For a project involving non-dairy creamer, buyers should assess the claim against the exact model, ingredient information, nutrition specification, and supporting qualification documents. Cograin’s K80 is identified in its product information as a kosher product, while S35 is identified as a vegan non-dairy creamer. Their specifications illustrate why buyers should not treat those labels as interchangeable or assume that one label answers every ingredient, certification, or market-access question.

The distinction matters when a creamer is being evaluated for coffee, milk tea, bakery, beverage, or another end use with defined ingredient requirements. K80 lists sodium caseinate among its materials and reports fat at 32.0g/100g. S35 lists a different formulation and reports 0g protein and 0g trans fat. These are model-specific details, not general characteristics of every non-dairy creamer. A buyer’s qualification record should preserve the product identity and the exact claim being assessed rather than relying on a broad category name.

What a kosher or vegan claim establishes—and what it does not

A product label or category description is a starting point for qualification, not a substitute for checking the documentation required by the buyer or destination market. In the supplied product information, K80 is categorized as a kosher product. That establishes how the model is described in the product record, but the record does not identify a certifying body, certificate number, covered facility, certificate scope, or validity period. Those details should therefore not be inferred from the model name or the word kosher alone.

S35 is categorized as a vegan non-dairy creamer. Its listed materials are glucose syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oil, emulsifier, oxidized hydroxypropyl starch, and anti-caking agent. The provided formulation does not list milk powder or sodium caseinate. That is useful ingredient-level information for initial screening, but it is not, by itself, evidence of a third-party vegan certification or of controls covering shared equipment, processing aids, cross-contact, or labeling in a particular market. Where those matters are part of a buyer’s specification, they require separate confirmation.

These distinctions also help prevent a common category error: non-dairy in a product name does not automatically mean vegan. The product records for other Cograin models show why. K60 lists both milk powder and sodium caseinate; FC22 lists milk powder; and K80 lists sodium caseinate. Those entries are relevant to ingredient review, but they should not be transferred to S35 or to every product in the portfolio. Conversely, S35’s listed formulation should not be used to characterize K80, K60, FC22, or a different batch or formulation.

Reading the K80 specification

K80 is described as a kosher product. Its listed materials are glucose syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oil, sodium caseinate, emulsifier, stabilizer, and anti-caking agent. Its product parameters state fat at 32.0g/100g and protein at 2.5g/100g. The model is listed for beverage, dessert, milk tea, and coffee applications. Taken together, these details identify a specific product profile for review; they do not establish that the model is vegan or provide a basis for making claims about other K80 formulations without checking their applicable records.

Sodium caseinate is a milk-derived ingredient. Its presence is therefore material when a project requires a vegan formulation or has ingredient restrictions that exclude milk-derived components. The term non-dairy in the product name should not be read as overriding the ingredient list. At the same time, the ingredient entry alone does not answer the buyer’s separate question about kosher qualification. Ingredient suitability and kosher documentation are distinct checks, and they should be recorded separately.

The K80 product information does not state a trans-fat value. A value reported for another model must not be substituted. For example, S35 specifies 0g trans fat, while the K80 parameter list supplied here gives only fat and protein. If a project requires a trans-fat declaration for K80, the buyer should obtain the applicable model-specific specification rather than infer a value from the product category, another model, or the use of hydrogenated vegetable oil in the ingredient list.

Reading the S35 specification

S35 is identified as a vegan non-dairy creamer. Its stated parameters are fat 35.0g/100g, trans fat 0g, and protein 0g. Its listed materials are glucose syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oil, emulsifier, oxidized hydroxypropyl starch, and anti-caking agent. The product information lists vegetarian products, alcoholic beverages, milk tea, coffee, and baking among its applicable industries. These are the supplied model-level details that buyers can use for an initial comparison with a project brief.

The 0g protein value is a specification detail for S35, not an independent certificate and not a universal definition of vegan status. Likewise, the absence of milk powder and sodium caseinate from the listed materials is relevant to screening, but the provided information does not describe allergen controls or manufacturing segregation. Buyers whose qualification criteria include those matters should request the relevant documentation and confirm that it applies to the exact product and production scope under review.

S35 also has a stated 0g trans-fat value. That value belongs to S35’s product parameters. It should not be attributed to K80, whose supplied parameters do not include trans fat, or generalized to other non-dairy creamer models. When a specification uses a zero value, retain the exact value and unit as stated and verify that the buyer’s requested declaration uses the same reporting basis. Do not convert a model-level figure into a claim about a different product, batch, or finished food without supporting information.

Why ingredient lists need model-level review

Ingredient review is most useful when it is attached to a named model and the version of the specification being evaluated. In the available product information, K80 lists sodium caseinate; K60 lists milk powder and sodium caseinate; FC22 lists milk powder; and S35 lists neither of those ingredients. These examples show that a single portfolio can include different ingredient profiles. They do not establish the full formulation, processing controls, or claim status of any product beyond the information supplied for that model.

For a food manufacturer, importer, or product-development team, the practical implication is to keep two records rather than one: an ingredient and nutrition review, and a claim or certification review. The first records what the model-specific materials and parameters state. The second records which qualification is required, what evidence was examined, and whether the evidence covers the product and intended use. Keeping them separate makes it less likely that a kosher designation will be mistaken for vegan status, or that a vegan product description will be treated as proof of certification or allergen control.

Non-dairy creamer may be considered for coffee, milk tea, bakery, and other beverage or food applications, but an application listing is not a compliance determination. A formulation that fits an application does not automatically fit every ingredient policy or labeling requirement for the finished product. Qualification should therefore connect the named creamer model to the specific recipe, processing context, and buyer requirement being assessed.

A practical qualification sequence for buyers

1. Define the claim under review.

   Record whether the project requires kosher qualification, a vegan formulation, a stated trans-fat value, a protein limit, or more than one of these. Avoid combining distinct requirements into a single general request for a non-dairy product.

2. Identify the exact model.

   Write the model name as it appears in the product specification. Keep K80 and S35 separate from K60, FC22, or other products. If the order or project refers to a revised formulation or a particular production specification, ensure the qualification documents refer to that same scope.

3. Check the listed ingredients.

   For K80, note sodium caseinate. For S35, note the listed formulation and the fact that its supplied materials do not name milk powder or sodium caseinate. Treat these as ingredient-record observations, not as conclusions about unlisted processing aids, cross-contact, or certification.

4. Match parameters to the buyer’s requirement.

   K80 lists fat at 32.0g/100g and protein at 2.5g/100g. S35 lists fat at 35.0g/100g, protein at 0g, and trans fat at 0g. K80’s provided parameter list contains no trans-fat value. If a required field is absent, obtain the specification for the relevant model instead of borrowing a number from another product.

5. Review qualification evidence separately.

   For a kosher requirement, check the documentation that the buyer needs, including product and scope coverage and any applicable validity details. The available K80 product record does not provide those particulars. For a vegan requirement, determine whether the buyer needs an ingredient-based assessment, external certification, manufacturing-control evidence, or another defined form of substantiation. The S35 product category alone does not answer all of these questions.

6. Confirm application and finished-product fit.

   Use the model’s stated application information as a screening aid, then review it against the actual recipe and end-use specification. The supplied records list K80 for beverage, dessert, milk tea, and coffee, and S35 for vegetarian products, alcoholic beverages, milk tea, coffee, and baking. These lists do not establish performance in every recipe or replace a buyer’s own acceptance criteria.

7. Retain the evidence with the decision.

   Keep the model identifier, specification, claim documents reviewed, and any unresolved fields together in the project file. This supports a traceable decision and helps prevent a later substitution of one model’s ingredient or nutrition data for another’s.

Application fit is not a substitute for qualification

For a milk-tea or coffee project, both K80 and S35 appear in application-relevant categories in their product records, but the decision depends on the project’s claim and formulation requirements. If the recipe requires a kosher product, K80 is the model identified as kosher in the supplied information, subject to review of the supporting documentation needed for the buyer’s qualification. If the project requires a vegan formulation, S35 is the model identified as vegan and its listed ingredients and parameters provide the starting point for review. The available facts do not establish that these models are interchangeable.

For bakery or alcoholic-beverage use, S35’s application list includes baking and alcoholic beverages. K80’s list includes dessert but does not specifically identify bakery or alcoholic beverages. This is a difference in the supplied application information, not proof that K80 cannot be used in a particular recipe. A buyer should distinguish between a model’s documented application scope and an untested or unconfirmed extension to another use. Where the intended use is not expressly listed, request model-specific confirmation and assess the finished formulation against the project’s own criteria.

Ingredient and nutrition checks also remain relevant after an application match. An ingredient that is acceptable for one recipe may conflict with a project’s vegan requirement; a missing parameter may prevent a buyer from completing a specification comparison. In this case, K80’s sodium caseinate entry and S35’s listed vegan formulation are useful distinguishing facts. The stated 32.0g/100g fat for K80 and the 0g protein and 0g trans fat values for S35 are useful model-specific data points, but neither set should be treated as a complete qualification file.

What the available information supports

The documented comparison is narrow but useful. K80 is categorized as a kosher product, includes sodium caseinate in its listed materials, and reports fat at 32.0g/100g and protein at 2.5g/100g. S35 is categorized as a vegan non-dairy creamer, has a listed formulation without milk powder or sodium caseinate, and reports fat at 35.0g/100g, protein at 0g, and trans fat at 0g. These details support an initial model-level review; they do not provide a certificate number, certification scope, full allergen-control record, or a K80 trans-fat value.

For buyers comparing a kosher non-dairy creamer with a vegan non-dairy creamer, the decision should follow the requirement rather than the shared category name. Confirm the exact model, review its ingredients and stated parameters, and verify the qualification evidence that applies to the product and intended use. Cograin is the brand associated with these product records; company information is available at Cograin. The product facts above should remain attached to K80 and S35 respectively, rather than being generalized to the full range.

Frequently asked questions

Does non-dairy creamer automatically mean vegan?

No. The supplied product information shows different ingredient profiles within the non-dairy creamer range. K80 lists sodium caseinate, while S35 is identified as vegan and its listed materials do not include milk powder or sodium caseinate. Buyers should review the exact model and any additional evidence their requirements call for.

Does the K80 kosher designation prove its certification scope?

The available product record identifies K80 as a kosher product, but it does not state a certifying body, certificate number, covered facility, scope, or validity period. Buyers who need those details should verify them against the documentation applicable to the exact product and qualification requirement.

Which model has a stated zero-trans-fat value?

S35 lists trans fat at 0g. The supplied K80 parameters list fat at 32.0g/100g and protein at 2.5g/100g, but do not state a trans-fat value. S35’s value should not be applied to K80 or another model.

What should a buyer check before approving a vegan creamer?

Start with the exact model and its ingredient and nutrition information. For S35, the supplied record identifies a vegan formulation, lists its materials, and reports protein at 0g and trans fat at 0g. Then verify any certification, allergen-control, manufacturing, labeling, or application evidence required by the buyer’s specification; those details are not established by the product category alone.

Conclusion

K80 and S35 demonstrate why compliance review for non-dairy creamer should be model-specific. K80’s kosher product designation and sodium caseinate entry answer different questions; S35’s vegan category, listed formulation, 0g protein, and 0g trans fat are also distinct pieces of evidence. The reliable qualification path is to match the claim to the exact model, preserve stated parameters and ingredient details, and confirm any required documentation that is not identified in the available specification.