True that Milchig bread is Assur, but this bread is NOT Milchig!!!
It would be if we would apply the din of ein m’vatlin, which is precisely what we’re arguing about. See Rav Schachter’s opinion of what the halacha would be in our case acc. to the TZ”TZ.
However, you have not demonstrated any proof or valid logic that Ein Mevatlin applies to a product that would not be eaten with meat.
You haven’t demonstrated that there’s any halachic validity to an assumption that something won’t be eaten with meat, other than a siman in the bread itself, or a davar muat. An OU D has no validity to create a halachic assumption that it will not be eaten with meat.
Although unnecessary for my argument, I should point out that Thomas markets primarily to a customer base which would certainly eat it with meat.* I don’t understand Rav Schachter’s argument that intention goes according to the buyer.
I have none, this is just my opinion. I should clarify that there are opinions (cited in Badei Hashulchan, and my understanding is that the Chochmas Adam holds this way as well) that ein m’vatlin issur l’chatchila does not apply at all for milk in bread. According to them, it would not be a problem. I am merely opining that according to the TZ”TZ, the OU D doesn’t help.
You’re right, I’m not as familiar with ma’amid as I would like to be, but isn’t your raya from ma’amid really a kasha on the TZ”TZ, not on me?
Maybe choc’s right, and my tone was too harsh, so please be moichel me. Let me rephrase my question. Why do you object to someone (Yitayningwut) not requiring an OU on his food, based on no bittul even with more than 60 on an intentional ingredient when that same OU is someich on intentional bittul of more than 60?