3 ms·

> ...when you have no idea whether that's true If you're familiar with soy milk and almond milk, it's a pretty dubious claim. The most well known brand in the

> ...when you have no idea whether that's true If you're familiar with soy milk and almond milk, it's a pretty dubious claim. The most well known brand in the US is Silk, which contains no such whitening ingredients that I have seen (see https://silk.com/products https://silk.com/products for ingredient information) nor have I encountered any other brands that contain whitening ingredients. I think it's justifiable to say that claim is a falsehood.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
All of Silk's milks contain calcium carbonate, which serves the dual purpose of whitening the milk and calcium fortification. http://www.ddwcolor.com/natural-colours/calcium-carbonate/ http://www.ddwcolor.com/natural-colours/calcium-carbonate/
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  I'm reasonably sure that it's there at levels sufficient only for the calcium fortification. Calcium carbonate was only approved for use as a food colorant by the FDA in late 2017 (e.g. https://sensientfoodcolors.com/en-us/regulatory/fda-approves-calcium-carbonate-color-additive/ https://sensientfoodcolors.com/en-us/regulatory/fda-approves...), many, many years after Silk was launched. Note that calcium carbonate is listed in the ingredients under the mineral and vitamin supplementation group.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    If it takes more to use it as a whitener, those calcium carbonate candies will cause hypercalcemia. The truth is that what's there is already enough to whiten the milk, and the article mentions this as well. ("Many plant milk brands add calcium carbonate – chalk – to make the liquid whiter and more opaque....") The only difference after 2017 is that now it can be used purely for whitening, which you would need less of it for.
yesenadam 8y ago
> ...when you have no idea whether that's true I was referring to whether it's true that it's a lie or not, not whether the claim is true or not. I seem to have not made that clear enough, sorry for that. If someone says something false but they believe it's true, that's not lying. On the other hand, if someone says something true but they believe it's false, that is lying. Whether what they're saying is actually true or false is irrelevant to whether they're lying. Lying is saying something different to what you believe, with intent to deceive.[0] It's about a difference between what you say and what you believe. I think getting things wrong is a lot more common than lying on this planet, and labelling every getting-wrong of things a 'lie' should be considered harmful. Getting things wrong is natural, unavoidable, 'innocent' - lying is not. [0] Or something like that - trying to make precise definitions is hard and not so useful.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

All of Silk's milks contain calcium carbonate, which serves the dual purpose of whitening the milk and calcium fortification. http://www.ddwcolor.com/natural-colours/calcium-carbonate/ http://www.ddwcolor.com/natural-colours/calcium-carbonate/

ThrowawayR2 8y ago
I'm reasonably sure that it's there at levels sufficient only for the calcium fortification. Calcium carbonate was only approved for use as a food colorant by the FDA in late 2017 (e.g. https://sensientfoodcolors.com/en-us/regulatory/fda-approves-calcium-carbonate-color-additive/ https://sensientfoodcolors.com/en-us/regulatory/fda-approves...), many, many years after Silk was launched. Note that calcium carbonate is listed in the ingredients under the mineral and vitamin supplementation group.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  If it takes more to use it as a whitener, those calcium carbonate candies will cause hypercalcemia. The truth is that what's there is already enough to whiten the milk, and the article mentions this as well. ("Many plant milk brands add calcium carbonate – chalk – to make the liquid whiter and more opaque....") The only difference after 2017 is that now it can be used purely for whitening, which you would need less of it for.

yesenadam 8y ago

> ...when you have no idea whether that's true I was referring to whether it's true that it's a lie or not, not whether the claim is true or not. I seem to have not made that clear enough, sorry for that. If someone says something false but they believe it's true, that's not lying. On the other hand, if someone says something true but they believe it's false, that is lying. Whether what they're saying is actually true or false is irrelevant to whether they're lying. Lying is saying something different to what you believe, with intent to deceive.[0] It's about a difference between what you say and what you believe. I think getting things wrong is a lot more common than lying on this planet, and labelling every getting-wrong of things a 'lie' should be considered harmful. Getting things wrong is natural, unavoidable, 'innocent' - lying is not. [0] Or something like that - trying to make precise definitions is hard and not so useful.