Dear Neville,
Almost nothing by itself is objectively a kula or chumra. But when we have two differing statements, there will be a subjective chumra and a subjective kula. If the subjective chumra is revealed to be more than required by the law, then it opens the possibility tht the other statement is not a kula. This is all for me as a simple student. But if a qualified rav states xyz is a kula, then the goal is to ascertain his intention and nothing more. If it is a cohesive work such as the Mishna Berurah than we may put some effort in to understanding what his system of terms is.
Chalav Hacompanies from it’s origins was considered to be chalav yisroel. Rav Moshe’s first teshuvos on the topic seem to be affirming it.
Yoshon/chodosh goes way back and is hard to ascertain. Once the Bach/Rema/Others? were not rejected, it has become precedent. And I would be uncomfortable calling that a kula until it could be demonstrated that the earlier sources were of the opinion to be machmir in such a scenario. This last sentence is very hard to verify what was done. But it is easy to theorize what they held. I don’t rely on such theories.
Call what I do chumros or kulos, I don’t care. I’m not changing what I do based on peer pressure.
I would say I’m the lowest on the low here, but that spot is already taken.
I’m surprised he didn’t comment on these threads.