3 ms·
I'm happy with it as well, but imagine being a lactose intolerant seven year old with English as a second language trying to pick a milky beverage from: Almond
by koala_man 8y ago
I'm happy with it as well, but imagine being a lactose intolerant seven year old with English as a second language trying to pick a milky beverage from:
Almond, Banana, Coconut, Chocolate, Goat, Malt, Oat, Organic, 2%, Soy, Strawberry and Quinoa milk.
This is why I don't think it's stupid to put the standard wording "May contain traces of milk" on a cartoon of milk.
- jodrellblank 8y agoIn your example, does the "milk" in "may contain traces of milk" include all the dictionary definition kinds of "milk"? arguing that "milk" is confusing so we should clarify it by saying the same word again, seems unhelpful to 7 year old ESL Lactose Timmy.
- koala_man 8y agoSorry for not being more clear. The argument is that even though it's easy for me to tell what's milk, I realize that it actually requires quite a bit of nutritional and cultural context, and that we should therefore consider not doing it. I also realize that it seems silly to put "may contain traces of milk" on a carton of milk, but we should still consider doing it for the same reason. Reserving "milk" for dairy products is not in itself sufficient because many dairy products don't use it ("cream", "kefir", "half&half"). The end goal is that Timmy should be able to look for a specific phrase on the nutritional info, rather than spending all day on the toilet because a bunch of nutritionally savvy and well educated native English speaking felt that it should be obvious. As a bonus, it makes NLP easier.