[dehrmann]

> I've never seen a carton of oat milk and thought it contained dairy

I have no issues with "<plant> milk" products and labeling them like that, but people do get confused about their nutritional profiles, thinking they're substitutes for milk. They're not, and they're chemically different enough that they're not good substitutes for cooking. About the only thing they're good substitutes for is liquid milk, though I hear oat milk foams up well for a cappuccino.

[danShumway]

> but people do get confused about their nutritional profiles

By that logic, should 2% milk be allowed to be called milk? What about chocolate milk? Nutritional profiles can vary wildly between different brands and products, especially when we're talking about meat -- so where do you draw the line?

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Look, you're raising an interesting point but this is not about meat vs. not meat (or "what kind of meat"). For instance, I was recently made aware that about 80% of the milk sold in Greek supermarkets (I'm Greek) is UHT ("long-life"). That goes for the milk displayed in refrigerated isles. OK? Supermarkets put UHT milk in the fridge - so people will think it's fresh. Most likely it's the dairy companies that direct them to do so. Some brands even put UHT milk in clear plastic bottles, like the ones used for fresh milk. Last time I checked there were maybe three brands of pasteurised (i.e. "fresh", not long-life) milk in the refrigerated isle in the three supermarkets I visit frequently.

And yet, I remember reading (and could perhaps dig up again with a bit of effort) a study claiming that Greeks don't like to drink UHT milk and prefer fresh milk. Well, perhaps that's what they think but in practice most of the milk on sale (and so, very likely, most of what is consumed) is UHT.

Note: "fresh milk" is not raw milk; "fresh" milk means milk that's been pasteurised, but not ultra-pasteurised, and that's been knocking about the dairy industry's plants and refrigerated trucks and the like for about a week. "Fresh" is a misnomer. Even if it wasn't, people don't seem capable of distinguishing it from UHT milk anyway.

Bottom line: people don't know what they're consuming. Like, they really have no idea. Myself I hadn't noticed all that but it was pointed out to me by a friend who is a dairy scientist. In fact, I'd been drinking a UHT milk and thinking "hey, that tastes kinda sweet". I even kinda liked it. I mean, there's nothing wrong with drinking UHT milk! Don't get me wrong- it's just as nutritious as "fresh" milk. Except, I had no idea. This is disturbing. It makes me wonder- what else am I missing? What else is sold to me as one kind of food but is really something else than what I expect?

[danShumway]

Okay, but you're arguing for better labeling in general about food production, ingredients, and storage -- not that people shouldn't be able to use the word "meat" on a Morningstar package.

I mean, I would love if every product was clearly labeled whether it contained animal by-products, it would save me from having to read ingredients on everything. It's annoying to have to check to see whether a loaf of bread in the supermarket contains milk or not, or to have to search online whether some obscure ingredient is an animal gelatin. And additionally, yeah, there is a lot of confusion around buzzwords like "free-range" or "organic" which basically mean very little. You're right about that stuff.

But the words "milk" and "meat" are not part of the problem. It's fine if almond milk is in the milk isle and labeled as milk. Calling it almond milk-substitute would not have solved your problem with accidentally buying UHT milk, because "milk" itself is not a specific enough word to solve your problem on its own.

And to jump back to the original comment I was responding to -- "milk" is also not specific enough of a word to communicate what the nutritional profile is of the food you're consuming. Yes, there are concerns about people not knowing what is and isn't healthy and not being able to identify how food was produced and sourced. No, forcing plant-based substitutes to drop the words "milk" or "meat" won't fix that.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I agree about the world "milk", for example in Greece we call fig sap "fig milk". But calling nut paste or beans "meat" grates.

Anyway my ocncern is that most consumers are at the point where they don't understand the difference between animal milk and plant milk, or even animal meat and plant-based meat substitutes, because they're used to so much over-processed food that they don't recognise the tastes of ordinary foodstfufs anymore.

[albertgoeswoof]

Well chocolate milk does come from brown cows, according to 16 million americans

https://iheartintelligence.com/millions-of-americans-think-c...

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I find it more likely that 16 million Americans decided to take the piss when answering that particular question, perhaps offended that such an obviously dumb question would be asked of them with a straight face. I would be.

[ben_w]

16 million Americans have, by definition of the scoring mechanism, IQ 70 or lower. I suspect the only reason the number thinking it’s from brown cows isn’t higher is all the people who don’t think milk comes from anywhere but the supermarket selling it.

[zajio1am]

That agrees with the lizardman constant:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...

[bigfudge]

But how many believe in qanon? I really wish we could put that down to a warped sense of humour...