4 ms·

Yes but juices are not something you use as a milk alternative. The researches were specifically talking about "plant-based milk alternatives", as in "alternat

Yes but juices are not something you use as a milk alternative. The researches were specifically talking about "plant-based milk alternatives", as in "alternatives to milk". Hot chocolate may be a plant-based drink, but it is not a milk alternative. "plant-based milk alternatives" is a very clear label that avoids the debate around calling them milks. My own opinion is that cow's milk shouldn't be labeled a human food, so I'm fine with "plant milks" and personally just refer to them "milk" in some contexts, but for the sake of packaging and writing for the general public, I think clarity is important, and "oat milk" or "oat-based milk alternative" are both much clearer than "oat juice", especially since commercial products are rarely just one ingredient + water. For example, you have "soy kefir", "soy yoghurt", and "soymilk", all different things and I don't see a case for "soy juice" being more accurate for soymilk than the other two. Also you have "coconut water" and "coconut milk" and if we're going to call one of those a juice I certainly wouldn't go with coconut milk. Designating it as a "milk" or at least a "milk alternative" is useful in indicating what role it might play in cuisine, and calling it a "drink" does not communicate the same thing. Also, referring to plant milks with the word for "milk" (or local language variant) appears to be a tradition dating back at least 700 years in English (and longer for other languages): https://theliterarycucina.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/medieval_almond_milk_recipe/ https://theliterarycucina.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/medieval_...

sshine 2y ago
> cow's milk shouldn't be labeled a human food But humans drink it? > "oat milk" or "oat-based milk alternative" are both much clearer than "oat juice" It doesn't get called "oat juice", it gets called "oat drink". Calling it a milk when the macronutrients and amino acid composition is entirely not equal to animal milk is the misleading part. > referring to plant milks with the word for "milk" [...] appears to be a tradition dating back at least 700 years That is a valid argument. And I believe it's not just archaic; plant liquids that resemble milk can be referred to as milk in a general meaning, rather than in the strict mammary gland output meaning of milk. But this general definition of milk is still separate from when alternatives to cow's milk are productized. Recent EU law acts as consumer protection against the misconception that plant-based drinks are nutritionally one-to-one alternatives to cow's milk. While they may be healthy, or even healthier given the right total diet, you can't substitute milk with a plant-based drink and expect the same nutritional value. By logical extreme, dyed water can be a plant-based milk alternative. And out goes consumer protection.
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  > But humans drink it? Humans eat other humans as well. I still think human meat shouldn't be labeled as food. And if you are going to sell animal milk for human consumption, why not just call it "Cow milk", "goat milk", etc. since that would at least indicate the animal that would naturally consume it. > It doesn't get called "oat juice", it gets called "oat drink". And Horchata is a rice drink, but it's different from what I would consider rice milk. > Calling it a milk when the macronutrients and amino acid composition is entirely not equal to animal milk is the misleading part. I wasn't questioning whether it should be called milk, or even product naming restrictions in a specific country, but the clarity of the author's choice of words for this article on a global platform, and specifically when talking about "plant-based drinks" which again, is a very vague description which encompasses nearly all drinks that aren't animal milk. Perhaps there's even a cultural bias to my opinion; I don't know how much of the world would find "plant-based drinks" more clear than "plant-based milk alternatives" (though I suspect the vast majority would find the latter clearer). For what it's worth, the study this article is about also used "plant-based milk alternatives". Again, soy milk and soy kefir would both be "soy drinks". I find "soy milk" or "soy-based milk alternative" much clearer (and I don't see how the latter could be confused with cow milk). > By logical extreme, dyed water can be a plant-based milk alternative. And out goes consumer protection. This doesn't follow to me. Assuming it's a plant-based dye I can see more of an argument for calling it a "plant-based drink" than "plant-based milk". Are you saying that "plant-based drink" is intentionally vague so that companies can sell whatever they want as a "plant-based drink"? Or are there actual regulations requiring "X drink" to be what I think of as "X milk"?
  - sshine 2y ago
    > Humans eat other humans as well. I still think human meat shouldn't be labeled as food. No they don’t. If eating human flesh was an actual tendency in a society civilised enough to discuss food labelling rules, that would be a legitimate comparison and a real concern. But as it stands, (cow’s) milk gets produced in the millions of gallons, and human meat you still have to find on Craigslist or on the streets of San Francisco. > I find "soy milk" or "soy-based milk alternative" much clearer Ironically, it is “milk” (in the texture sense) by definition of not being very clear. > I don't know how much of the world would find "plant-based drinks" more clear than "plant-based milk alternatives" Only by assuming a similarity with dairy that is not nutritionally justified. > Or are there actual regulations requiring "X drink" to be what I think of as "X milk"? Yes, read my original post. I linked to a 2018 decision by the EU court that forbade this.

sshine 2y ago

> cow's milk shouldn't be labeled a human food But humans drink it? > "oat milk" or "oat-based milk alternative" are both much clearer than "oat juice" It doesn't get called "oat juice", it gets called "oat drink". Calling it a milk when the macronutrients and amino acid composition is entirely not equal to animal milk is the misleading part. > referring to plant milks with the word for "milk" [...] appears to be a tradition dating back at least 700 years That is a valid argument. And I believe it's not just archaic; plant liquids that resemble milk can be referred to as milk in a general meaning, rather than in the strict mammary gland output meaning of milk. But this general definition of milk is still separate from when alternatives to cow's milk are productized. Recent EU law acts as consumer protection against the misconception that plant-based drinks are nutritionally one-to-one alternatives to cow's milk. While they may be healthy, or even healthier given the right total diet, you can't substitute milk with a plant-based drink and expect the same nutritional value. By logical extreme, dyed water can be a plant-based milk alternative. And out goes consumer protection.

pcthrowaway 2y ago
> But humans drink it? Humans eat other humans as well. I still think human meat shouldn't be labeled as food. And if you are going to sell animal milk for human consumption, why not just call it "Cow milk", "goat milk", etc. since that would at least indicate the animal that would naturally consume it. > It doesn't get called "oat juice", it gets called "oat drink". And Horchata is a rice drink, but it's different from what I would consider rice milk. > Calling it a milk when the macronutrients and amino acid composition is entirely not equal to animal milk is the misleading part. I wasn't questioning whether it should be called milk, or even product naming restrictions in a specific country, but the clarity of the author's choice of words for this article on a global platform, and specifically when talking about "plant-based drinks" which again, is a very vague description which encompasses nearly all drinks that aren't animal milk. Perhaps there's even a cultural bias to my opinion; I don't know how much of the world would find "plant-based drinks" more clear than "plant-based milk alternatives" (though I suspect the vast majority would find the latter clearer). For what it's worth, the study this article is about also used "plant-based milk alternatives". Again, soy milk and soy kefir would both be "soy drinks". I find "soy milk" or "soy-based milk alternative" much clearer (and I don't see how the latter could be confused with cow milk). > By logical extreme, dyed water can be a plant-based milk alternative. And out goes consumer protection. This doesn't follow to me. Assuming it's a plant-based dye I can see more of an argument for calling it a "plant-based drink" than "plant-based milk". Are you saying that "plant-based drink" is intentionally vague so that companies can sell whatever they want as a "plant-based drink"? Or are there actual regulations requiring "X drink" to be what I think of as "X milk"?
- sshine 2y ago
  > Humans eat other humans as well. I still think human meat shouldn't be labeled as food. No they don’t. If eating human flesh was an actual tendency in a society civilised enough to discuss food labelling rules, that would be a legitimate comparison and a real concern. But as it stands, (cow’s) milk gets produced in the millions of gallons, and human meat you still have to find on Craigslist or on the streets of San Francisco. > I find "soy milk" or "soy-based milk alternative" much clearer Ironically, it is “milk” (in the texture sense) by definition of not being very clear. > I don't know how much of the world would find "plant-based drinks" more clear than "plant-based milk alternatives" Only by assuming a similarity with dairy that is not nutritionally justified. > Or are there actual regulations requiring "X drink" to be what I think of as "X milk"? Yes, read my original post. I linked to a 2018 decision by the EU court that forbade this.