9 ms·
Great write up on debunking oatly's "health benefits". But fails to mention the the moral reasons to choose oat milk over cow's milk. TBF lot of the meat repla
by krthkv 6y ago
Great write up on debunking oatly's "health benefits". But fails to mention the the moral reasons to choose oat milk over cow's milk.
TBF lot of the meat replacements are plagued by similar problems. [1]
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/impossible-and-beyond-how-healthy-are-these-meatless-burgers-2019081517448 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/impossible-and-beyond-ho...
- puttycat 6y agoExactly what I had in mind. The article does not mention cow milk's health implications, and only focuses on debunking Oatly's alleged health benefits. This creates the same "Obscure the Truth" effect the article opens with, giving the impression that there's nothing wrong with cow milk. If both options are equally unhealthy (which is at the minimum the biased impression the article gives by not discussing cow milk), at the minimum the moral one should be chosen.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y agoWhat actual proven health implications does cows milk have?
- crispyporkbites 6y agoMost people have some level of lactose malabsorption. Also cows milk has pretty grave health implications for the cows
- m3kw9 6y agoSo does eating meat.
- flyinglizard 6y agoI asked my vegan friends if they’d rather these animals would not exist at all rather than be used for milk production (because they are only bred into existence for that). I wonder how that logic applies to humans born into living in rough countries, would vegans rather they would not exist at all? It’s not like a dairy cow has a life of eternal suffering after all. It eats, grazes, rests and socializes. It does cow things.
- schmidt87 6y agoI suggest you look up "factory farming" before making claims like "It’s not like a dairy cow has a life of eternal suffering after all". They literally don't do any of the activities you mention.
- flyinglizard 6y agoI know dairy farming very, very well. It varies between areas. In France for example, there are no mega farms, all farms are small to medium, many family owned. Hormones are banned. This is true for other parts of Western Europe. Mega Farms are mostly an American issue. I do not support them at all.
- schmidt87 6y agoThis is substantially incorrect, especially for France [1]: While cows indeed aren't grown in intensive farming in France, 95% of pork in France is raised in intensive factory farming, and other species have similar stats. Most of the western world has similar stats. This is far from a US-only problem. [1] https://www.liberation.fr/france/2018/06/04/porcs-bovins-volailles-la-vraie-vie-de-la-viande-francaise-dans-l-elevage-intensif_1656528 https://www.liberation.fr/france/2018/06/04/porcs-bovins-vol...
- flyinglizard 6y agoI was specifically talking about dairy farming. Pork, chicken and beef all have their own issues. The average USA farm size is about 220 cows vs. about 70 cows in France, and the practices used in Europe as a whole are more humane (my numbers are from closed market studies published by IFCN). These animals are very well monitored and cared for. I wouldn't want to change place with them, but then I also wouldn't trade places with many other humans around the world.
- schmidt87 6y agoI agree that cows are better off in France, but this is an anomaly.
- hhjinks 6y agoGlobally, yeah, but not in the areas where people actually drink milk. Being able to digest cow milk is basically a regional mutation.
- dsabanin 6y agoI also imagine drinking diluted cows pregnancy and chronic inflammation hormones with extra cortisol on top from all the stress they experience because of their living conditions can’t be beneficial for you as well.
- istjohn 6y agoTFA links to this article which discusses the health pros and cons of cows milk: https://www.healthline.com/health/is-milk-bad-for-you https://www.healthline.com/health/is-milk-bad-for-you
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y agoSo unless you are allergic/intolerant or drink a vast amount there are no proven health risks. Indeed it is a healthy food.
- saithound 6y ago> The article does not mention cow milk's health implications, and only focuses on debunking Oatly's alleged health benefits The article links to an entire other article discussing cow milk's health implications. > If both options are equally unhealthy (which is at the minimum the biased impression the article gives by not discussing cow milk), at the minimum the moral one should be chosen. Cow's milk and oat milk aren't the only two alternatives, though. Milk substitutes abound, some of them having much better health and moral implications (and as discussed in this thread, milk substitutes can be made at home).
- muglug 6y agoYeah, and one shouldn't ignore the economic and environmental drawbacks of milk – in the US, at least, the government subsidises milk production heavily so it's profitable for the farmers. And dairy milk is terrible for the environment: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042
- Spooky23 6y agoThat’s a bunk argument. The HFCS in every milk substitute that sells is the ultimate subsidy crop. Soy and rice are as well. Dairy isn’t profitable for farmers and is rapidly declining as beverage giants and more politically powerful agriculture interests push their policy goals. The environmental arguments aren’t very convincing to me. I grew up in an agricultural area where dairy was king and there was a diversified crop economy. Now it’s corn+fertilizer. Carbon impact may be lower, but the impact on the environment is more than carbon. Water depletion in the Midwest, pollution from runoff and over utilization and other factors matter too.
- kritiko 6y agoThere’s no HFCS in Oatly. I don’t really see how water depletion is a relevant issue when most cows are being fed grain and soy. Vegans probably ignore the harms of monoculture in their arguments. But a lot of meat eaters like to point to studies of how cattle and sheep can graze on land that can’t support other agriculture. Sure, but what % of cattle are actually raised that way? How much does a burger or gallon of milk cost when it’s grass fed.
- algesten 6y agoMoral and environmental. Milk is one level up from eating vegetables. Some milk consumption is probably sustainable, but we can't feed the entire world on quark cheese.
- petre 6y agoWe can feed the entire world on bugs. Are you prepared to eat bugs on a daily basis? I possibly would, occasionally, but maybe I'd like them cooked with a bit of butter, which is made out of cows milk.
- prepend 6y agoThe article is about the failings of Oatly, not the failures of milk. There’s lots of milk substitutes that aren’t as bad for you as Oatly. I read the comparison to milk as just a comparison to the baseline or what Oatly wants to taste like, not as an endorsement of cow milk.
- rattray 6y agoWhich milk substitutes are better? Especially in the sense that they wouldn't be able to accrue complaints from an assailant as dogged as this writer.
- themgt 6y agoI think unsweetened almond milk is maybe the best overall pick if you want a milk substitute. From my understanding it's fairly healthy, natural, and the taste / "mouth feel" is good. Downsides are cost and maybe the amount of water/bees used to make the almonds.
- rattray 6y agoI'm also a fan of almond milk from a taste perspective, but I've always been a bit unsure about how it is processed – and the amount of water used is definitely an ethical downside in my book (I used to live in California, where this was a controversy during times of drought). After a bit of research just now, though, there don't seem to be many credible claims of commercial Almond Milk's chemical processing being very scary (at least compared to Oatly, which also has a few additives) so that doesn't seem too problematic to me. This article discusses the environmental impact of various milk alternatives: https://medium.com/@tabitha.whiting/what-milk-should-you-buy-to-reduce-your-environmental-impact-e0489153e3b8#:~:text=Greenhouse%20gas%20emissions%3A%20a%20200ml%20glass%20of%20oat%20milk%20is,lower%20impact%20than%20other%20milks https://medium.com/@tabitha.whiting/what-milk-should-you-buy.... > Greenhouse gas emissions: a 200ml glass of oat milk is responsible for around 0.18kg of CO2e. That’s slightly more than almond milk, but less than soy or cow’s milk. > Swedish oat milk producer Oatly put the greenhouse gas emissions of a litre of their oat milk at 0.34kg, which is a lot less than the general estimate above of 0.18kg per 200ml > Water: a litre of oat milk needs about 48 litres of water produce. In terms of water, then, oat milk is much lower impact than other milks. In comparison, a liter of almond milk needs 386 liters of water to produce, and cow's milk, 1016, as per https://treadingmyownpath.com/2017/04/20/is-almond-milk-bad-for-the-planet/#:~:text=A%20litre%20of%20cow's%20milk,is%202.5x%20more%20water https://treadingmyownpath.com/2017/04/20/is-almond-milk-bad-.... The takeaway for me is that I might prefer oat milk to almond milk for "health/eco impact" reasons by a very narrow margin, but would strongly prefer either to cow's milk for those reasons.
- s1t5 6y ago> But fails to mention the the moral reasons to choose oat milk over cow's milk. This is kind a red herring. Cow's milk should be irrelevant because you don't have to choose between the two. You can leave both out if you have moral reasons to avoid cow's milk and health reasons to avoid oat milk.
- rattray 6y agoThe author compares them to each other, so it makes sense to talk about why you should take it out of the picture. As it happens, though, unsweetened almond milk does seem to have much less sugar – 0.2g by one measure I found (another just says 2g carbs of which 1g is fiber) and a glycemic index of 25 (low). So it is a bit surprising that the author didn't make this comparison – it's much more favorable to his point.