Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oatly: The New Coke?

divinations.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 429 posts

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#381

Post by jve »

neltnerb wrote: post #323
sillysaurusx wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely fascinating to read these replies! We have a very diverse set of people here. I had no idea that people didn't drink milk on its own. Apparently some Europeans don't. I eat cereal mostly to drink milk. If Oatly was a good substitute, I'd probably have started using it. (I haven't tried it yet.) 340ml is 0.08 gallons. That's consistent with "about a bowl of cereal."

I've seen a bunch of sides of it in the US. In the midwest where I grew up parts of my family required children to drink a glass of milk because the milk-industry propaganda at the time said it was important for kids to drink a bunch of milk for bones and growth and other stuff that was never true and was known to never be true. But we didn't have the internet yet, so how do you fact check it? The TV said so. I do se…

> because the milk-industry propaganda at the time said it was important for kids to drink a bunch of milk for bones and growth and other stuff that was never true and was known to never be true.

Care to provide some proofs? I live in a post-soviet country and from stories I heard regarding USSR, even adults in factories received milk (for free) daily.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#382

Post by natdempk »

Retric wrote: post #242
seanwilson wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I came away realizing that cattle used for milk production suffer more. I think you could certainly argue that. Beef cows are slaughtered at around 3 years and diary cows are slaughtered at around 5 years but after giving birth with their offspring taken away several times (both have about a 20 year life span). Personally, I don't understand how vegetarians justify it as being much different in terms of animal crue…

You get around 500 pounds of meat from a full grown cow. So, based on average US consumption that’s ~1 cow per 9 years per person. A single dairy cow produces ~100,000 lbs of milk over their lifespan. At average US consumption that’s ~1 cow per 200 years per person. US waste and exports make it hard to sanity check these numbers, but in 2018 there where 31.4 Million beef cows in US vs 9.4 milk cows adjusting for long…

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for these numbers? It's interesting to hear that one dairy cow's lifespan effectively covers enough milk for two average human lifespans worth of consumption.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#383

Post by howlin »

Freak_NL wrote: post #367
rconti wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think almond milk tastes awful, Oatly was the first milk substitute I actually liked (maybe preferred!) to dairy milk. Currently I rotate through Oatly, Califa farms, and Silk oat milks depending on what's available. The water footprint of almond milk is just mind-blowing. I can't fathom ripping out other productive agriculture so that we can suck up more water than other crops just to sell almonds overseas and tur…

Of all the mammal milk alternatives oat milk seems the most environmentally friendly in temperate climates, as it can be grown regionally. Although some point out that any plant-based milk is significantly better for the environment than mammal milk: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/28/what-pla...

Soy milk is just as reasonable environmentally and probably a little healthier as a nutrition source compared to oat milk. Though the flavor of soy is a little harder to get used to.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#384

Post by fsflover »

gridlockd wrote: post #258
ianai wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all the talk about fat content and quality, the topic of hormones in milk should be discussed. Cows load their milk up with hormones to stimulate growth in their calves. We’re not calves and don’t need stimulating. Further, modern dairy farms pump hormones into cows to induce higher milk production-thus more hormones make it into the milk in the container. There are even morphine-like compounds in milk and dairy…

> Ref “your body in balance” by Barnard A vegan neurologist might be a bit biased... What does he have to say about plant-based hormones such as phytoestrogens? Also, what is wrong with a little bit of morphine in your food?

> A vegan neurologist might be a bit biased...

“A doctor curing cancer may be a bit biased against tobacco...”

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#385

Post by dunefox »

GuB-42 wrote: post #299
seanwilson wrote: post #76

"Made for humans" also draws attention to the fact that the milk you're drinking from a cow is not being drank by the offspring of that cow like it normally would and many people don't realise you have to keep making diary cows give birth to get more milk. Newly born male cows are usually turned into veal in a few weeks and female cows are separated from their mothers so they don't drink the valuable milk. Milk givin…

That probably should be taught at school. That's the way farms work. Animals are slaughtered so you can eat them. The reason I think it should be taught at school is first because it basic knowledge. Farms employ a significant portion of the population of most countries, and that's what puts food on the table and keeps you alive. That's pretty important. Another reason is that school can teach that with a neutral poi…

It takes quite a lot of doublethink to mention respect and eating animals in the same sentence. And I say this as a meat eater as well (although I heavily reduced consumption of animal products in the last few months).

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#386

Post by dunefox »

williamdclt wrote: post #163
seanwilson wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I came away realizing that cattle used for milk production suffer more. I think you could certainly argue that. Beef cows are slaughtered at around 3 years and diary cows are slaughtered at around 5 years but after giving birth with their offspring taken away several times (both have about a 20 year life span). Personally, I don't understand how vegetarians justify it as being much different in terms of animal crue…

> You're still paying into a system that's killing animals for your benefit Still a net improvement over buying milk and meat isn't it? Also, people are vegetarian for all sorts of reasons. For some it's about eating meat, for some it's about animal cruelty, for some it's about environmental impact, and probably there's plenty of other reasons

I think no milk but meat would be better.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#387

Post by jve »

eyko wrote: post #304
317070 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-coffee drinker, I drink my oatly pure, in the same way as I drank my milk growing up. So yeah, 340 ml is apt when I use my big mug. You make it sound as if no-one drinks pure milk in your environment? I find THAT weird.

I've never seen an adult drink pure milk, other than in some movies. I guess it's an american thing? Any Europeans here who drink pints of milk care to comment?

North Europe here. Myself & my kids may consume at least 1 liter of milk per day up to multiple liters (with cereal, or just drinking it or making food with it). Not counting all the milk-products we consume...

In time of poverty, cow was actually essential part of life. A life saver. You get milk, butter, sour cream, cheese, cottage cheese. I think not every word from this list makes sense to some living in some other countries, because not all products are consumed in other places in the world.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#388

Post by yourkin »

loceng wrote: post #234
yourkin wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing wrong with sugar is overeating it to the point of ruining one's macro proportions and going into caloric surplus. Just saying that "sugar is unhealthy" is not true from a dietary perspective. A better statement would be "too much sugar is unhealthy".

Sugar and carbohydrates can severely negatively impact people, even in small amounts. "[INSERT FOOD] for some people is unhealthy at any amount" is what should be always said. People then have to determine what those foods and level of foods are, it could be accumulative as well - where too much of a few different foods may be too irritating to your system.

Cheese has a high tyrosine content and turkey -- tryptophan. Should one always mention that those foods could cause adverse effects for people who are sensitive to those amino-acids? I think that's a bit over the top, like saying that walking is healthy, but not forgetting to mention, that it is not, for people with severe arthritis. That seems like a truism to me and if one has those type of ailments, they most likely know about it or should seek medical advice.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#390

Post by pxtail »

yomly wrote: post #353
neltnerb wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a bunch of sides of it in the US. In the midwest where I grew up parts of my family required children to drink a glass of milk because the milk-industry propaganda at the time said it was important for kids to drink a bunch of milk for bones and growth and other stuff that was never true and was known to never be true. But we didn't have the internet yet, so how do you fact check it? The TV said so. I do se…

>I liked chocolate milk because who doesn't, but after someone for the first time pointed out that it's kinda weird for humans to drink milk intended for calves (maybe I was 13 or 14?) I pretty much just stopped drinking it because it just wasn't that good anyway and now I had an excuse. My brother and mother are both lactose intolerant, it turns out. Is it weird? Weird is completely abstract. Is eating the female co…

> When I think about attitudes towards food, I find it weirder that when we eat pork but are happy to throw away all the offal, cheeks, neck, knuckle, ears, ribs

Recently on a different discussion board some guy mentioned that he wanted to thaw the fish and left it on a counter instead of in the fridge - after some time he noticed that apparently a fly left eggs on small part of it, after he saw that he threw it into trash. There were various reposnses from "ewwww, you did it right!" to "it was perfectly fine to cook" One of the responses which I remembered was: "you just wasted life and death of this fish"

These are very simple words and seemingly obvious but it caught me by surprise a bit and I noticed that not always I'm thinking about my food like this. In a world where food can be highly processed, where a fish, chicken, pig can no longer resemble living creature but just some meaty pieces it's easy (and comfortable!) to skip, ignore the part that it was living being. I played a bit with this thought in my mind and went into procrastination area - is it "fair" to use life and death of multiple animals and plants to sustain, propel myself and then do nothing productive with this energy?

Post reply on HN