3 ms·

> 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 do

by 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.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > If eating human flesh was an actual tendency in a society ... Just as a fun heads up on human history, the markers are there that humans have eaten humans globally for several thousand years ... Funerary cannibalism appears to have been common as a mark of respect and humans developed defences against brain prion diseases .. this came to light when looking into why the Fore people developed Kuru .. they developed a sporadic variation that jumped the guard rails. In relatively recent recent European history there have been spates of "Corpse Medicine" (worth looking up) in which parts of Egyption mummies were eaten, parts of executed criminals, etc. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)

by sshine 2y ago

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.
- defrost 2y ago
  > If eating human flesh was an actual tendency in a society ... Just as a fun heads up on human history, the markers are there that humans have eaten humans globally for several thousand years ... Funerary cannibalism appears to have been common as a mark of respect and humans developed defences against brain prion diseases .. this came to light when looking into why the Fore people developed Kuru .. they developed a sporadic variation that jumped the guard rails. In relatively recent recent European history there have been spates of "Corpse Medicine" (worth looking up) in which parts of Egyption mummies were eaten, parts of executed criminals, etc. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)