Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bluedino 2414 days ago
That's also...not milk.
3 comments

“Milk” is used for many kinds of suspension liquids. Milk of Magnesia did not come from a magnesium cow.
In the US, the legal description of "milk"[1] is not only regulated but well specified.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=165f903bfaa729843a...

A counterexample to that is that you can walk into any chain supermarket and see "almond milk", "oat milk", and "soy milk" advertised on the shelves.

They all use the word "milk", yet none of the manufacturers get in trouble with the FDA. It must be because the code you linked only tells part of the story.

I'm guessing that only the word "milk" in isolation is legally required to be from a cow, and that "[blank] milk" (almond, soy, oat, goat, camel) is regulated by different statutes.

If you look closely, these alternatives are all labeled "almondmilk", "oatmilk" and "soymilk" for specifically this regulatory hurdle.
Interesting... do these regulations apply only to labels on the actual packaging of the foodstuffs, and not to advertizing, etc?

If I look at, for example, https://www.amazon.com/Almond-Breeze-Original-Milk-32/dp/B07... the picture shows that on the product carton, it's run together as "Almondmilk", but the Amazon listing calls it "Almond Breeze Original Almond Milk".

Or "almond drink" as I saw in a store last week.
The dairy industry has been agitating to get the FDA to put an end to the unwanted competition. I can't entirely blame them since tofu juice is in no way a milk.
> A counterexample...

Attention to detail: "([a-z]+) milk" != "\1milk"

> It must be because the code you linked only tells part of the story. I'm guessing...

The entirety of CFR is public domain, readily accessible, regularly maintained, and conveniently searchable at great expense to taxpayers. Care to explain why your speculative assertion isn't supported by proper citation?

Attention to detail would be noticing that that is exactly what they state in their last paragraph.

What's the point of linking to the FDA definition anyway? Apart from it obviously being a result of lobbying, it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not plant milks are, well, milk. It is overly specific as is, for starters, nobody would deny that mammals other than cows give milk.

The only result following from the regulation you linked is that people selling milk can legally only drop the specifier "cow's", but not "donkey" nor "almond", before the word "milk". Plant milks will keep being milks, as they have been in the English language since at least the 13th century.

This is not evidence against the above point.
But it has got a weird system to it. As far as I can tell, a fake “milk” is generally white (or white ish) and it has to be used in situations where milk would usually be used.

You don’t get grape milk and or orange milk for example.

You probably could if you ground up the seeds and added water, though I'm sure it's not economically practical.
It’s as much milk as turkey bacon is bacon.

Food is labeled based on its culinary classification. Something can be culinarily milk without coming out of a teat.

They're not even remotely substitutable. Different plant milks aren't even culinarily substitutable for each other. It's like substituting vinegar for cooking wine: broadly speaking, it'll usually work, but they're really not the same thing.

"milk" is more of a visual descriptor than a culinary classification.

People substituting almond milk for cow milk in cereal is it’s number one use. That’s cooking by the preparing food for consumption definition, even if you don’t use heat that’s hardly required.
I don't know what kind of cooking you do, but in my kitchen substituting vinegar for wine would be considered food-crime.
Oh, absolutely; I'm saying it's not any better to substitute, say, almond milk for cow milk. Worse, even; substituting vinegar for wine won't usually make the whole recipe fall apart altogether the way not enough fat will.
Hyperbole much? If they weren't remotely substitutable then why do coffee shops freely offer them as a... substitute. And interchangeably between different plant-based ones at that.
They probably don't work interchangeably in scenarios where the physical characteristics of the milk is a linchpin of the recipe. Baking in general requires precise temperature control and ingredient control (eg. cake, pastry, and bread flour types), whereas adding milk is more of a flavoring that doesn't impact the resulting drink at much (your coffee won't be a chewy inedible mess if you put a different kind of milk).
> Food is labeled based on its culinary classification. Something can be culinarily milk without coming out of a teat.

The FDA[1] would certainly love to hear all about it.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=165f903bfaa729843a...

What harm is done by saying plant-based milk? Everybody knows what we are talking about. It is crystal clear (yet white).

Milk is still understood by default as cow milk. It will change when and if cow milk is not as widespread as today, and then the word milk will keep reflecting the reality, as today.

The FDA, as in many parts of the world (in EU too, for instance), forbids calling such plant-based drinks milk because they are bribed and receive aggressive lobbying from the dairy industry [1].

How are we supposed to call them? Plant-based drinks that are white and look like milk? They are not always used as drinks since they can be used to cook, and are not the only plant based drinks. Yes, this makes it difficult to speak about them. Yes, this is possibly the point, along with avoiding that people think them as alternatives to cow milk.

When you are telling people that "this is not milk", you are spreading this lobbying. What is your point? People saying milk for plant based drinks will not be convinced by this prescriptive approach anyway.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/10/the-s...

"Plant-based milk" is actually more deceptive to me as a phrase, given the huge efforts the modern "plant-based meats" go to imitate meat.

"Oat milk", "almond milk" etc aren't really making any effort to imitate anything as far as I know, they are what they are.

> When you are telling people that "this is not milk", you are spreading this lobbying.

I neither object to your fallacious assertion, nor find personal shame in supporting its cause if the objective hammer countinues to drop hard on the class of uncritical marketing wank that you've just demonstrated.

Plant milks have been called milks for centuries at this point. It's probably okay.
As nasty and convoluted as they often seem, your remark is a prime example of why I respect the regulations of my country.
Milk of the Poppy I learned from Game of Thrones.
The use of "milk" for these plant juices has been driven by the marketing arms of huge corporations, not historical use.
Source? Afaik, coconut milk and soy milk have not only been made for centuries, but also called something like “milk” where they were consumed (e.g. India, China, Thailand, etc.)

ETA: The Mahābhārata, a book dating back to 400BCE, refers to making rice milk. So...

https://books.google.com/books?id=ivQ6CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=P...

Is that a translation preference or is the word for milk used specifically?

That excerpt is talking about deceiving someone with dilute pounded rice served as milk.

I don't know about soy milk, but that's not true at all for coconut where it was consumed.
Human breast milk is also called milk but it’s definitely a different thing.
Different how? It's definitely no less "milk" than cow's or sheep's or goat's milk. As a substance it's definitely as much "milk" as it can possibly be.
Are you serious?

You do know why animals (including humans) produce milk, don't you?

Yes, my point is it tastes very different, I’m not sure I’d want it in my breakfast cereal.