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

Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

bonappetit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 122 posts

Re: Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

#41

Post by denton-scratch »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #24
Karuma wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always been bad for you.

Tell that to the Massai, that live basically on a diet of milk, meat and blood. Just because you wish it to be bad it doesn't change reality my dude.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/lactose-intoleran...

"Lactase nonpersistence is most prevalent in people of East Asian descent, with 70 to 100 percent of people affected in these communities."

Masai herdsmen are East Africans; so I find that statistic bewildering. "Lactase nonpersistence" means the decline of the production of the enzyme lactase beyond infancy. I don't know whether lactase nonpersistence is equivalent to lactose intolerance.

Re: Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

#42

Post by Tsiklon »

bambax wrote: post #32
thinkingemote wrote: post #22

As a drink a pint of milk is cheaper than bottled water.

Drinking raw milk seems to be a very American thing? I eat cheese and yogourts, but I have never drank raw milk in a glass, and don't think I have ever seen anyone else do it in real life. It looks really bizarre (and frankly, kind of gross).

Raw milk is frequently used to describe non-pasturised milk - this of course shouldn’t be drunk unless you know exactly where it’s from.

A glass of milk isn’t so strange here in the U.K. I occasionally see people drinking from pint cartons, and occasionally do so myself when I’m walking to work.

But of course the strangeness is likely to depend on demographics of lactose tolerance where you are. Here lactose intolerance is relatively uncommon among the majority

Re: Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

#43

Post by Raed667 »

Freedom2 wrote: post #21
harryf wrote: post #7

Nutrition tip of the day: if someone is spending serious ad money to try to get you to eat or drink something, don’t. What ever it is. Don’t. It’s not going to be good for you Once upon a time consumers were being encouraged to “drink radium water” https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec... … as a species we have not become significantly smarter since then

> It’s not going to be good for you How about water ads? Can you specifically address how water isn't good for us, leaving aside absurd arguments such as "drink too much, and you'll drown!"

Water ads are not selling water, they're selling plastic bottles.

Re: Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

#45

Post by jonathanstrange »

vineyardmike wrote: post #37
jonathanstrange wrote: post #26

I'm with her. Once proponents of allegedly more ecological alternative products come up with their own names, I'll start considering them. Not being able to market their products on their own merits and instead piggybacking on popular categories like milk, steak, meat, burger, etc., usually just means that you won't get what you're looking for.

But fake “milk” is used basically as a drop in replacement for milk. For example, I take “oat milk” in my coffee every morning. Realistically, most would never have tried it if it was “liquid oat product for coffee” (since you presumably can’t call it “creamer” even though that also contains no dairy). This edict is also totality ignoring that “soy milk” is quite old and has long retained that name to minimal confusi…

That's exactly what I mean by "come up with their own names" - "liquid oat product for coffee" sounds terrible. The least you can expect is for them to come up with a good name. The Indian cuisine has come up with their own vegan and vegetarian food for 2000 years, it's delicious, and they don't need to call it "vegan sausages."

The problem I have with all these products (as a frequent consumer) is that you never know what you get. Some fake meat is delicious, other sorts are horrible, almost inedible. Soy "milk" makes me throw my guts out, almond "milk" tastes great.

Re: Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

#46

Post by silisili »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #26

I'm with her. Once proponents of allegedly more ecological alternative products come up with their own names, I'll start considering them. Not being able to market their products on their own merits and instead piggybacking on popular categories like milk, steak, meat, burger, etc., usually just means that you won't get what you're looking for.

Not sure why so downvoted. My kid said a neighbor had almond milk in his fridge, and she hated it. I asked her how she would milk an almond, playing dumbfounded.

She said she doesn't think you can, and it's probably just almonds in water. And I told her she's probably right, and it's not milk.

She loves milk, fwiw. Consider her one pissed off consumer. Why are these jackasses trying to piggyback?

Re: Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

#47

Post by jitix »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #24
Karuma wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always been bad for you.

Tell that to the Massai, that live basically on a diet of milk, meat and blood. Just because you wish it to be bad it doesn't change reality my dude.

They specifically adapted to survive on that diet due to both group level isolation and individual upbringing (gut bacteria development). Different socio-cultural groups often have different tolerance for common food items.

Re: Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

#48

Post by tgv »

crummy wrote: post #31
jonathanstrange wrote: post #26

I'm with her. Once proponents of allegedly more ecological alternative products come up with their own names, I'll start considering them. Not being able to market their products on their own merits and instead piggybacking on popular categories like milk, steak, meat, burger, etc., usually just means that you won't get what you're looking for.

Wikipedia says 'In English, the word "milk" has been used to refer to "milk-like plant juices" since 1200 CE' so I think that boat sailed a long time ago.

As an argument, that's rather thin. You'd need to show that it has been used "often" over the last decade or so to argue that it is common usage. That said, the use of coconut milk would suffice to prove your point.

Steak, burger, meat, etc., don't fall in this category, but personally, I find vegan burger more understandable than the technically/conventionally more precise plant-based patty. It also doesn't distract from the original word: if something is called burger, you can be pretty sure it's meat.

Re: Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

#49

Post by Pyramus »

malermeister wrote: post #23
dathos wrote: post #13

Looking at the comments it seems like most are just out of touch with gen z (or whatever gen) as big milk is. Cow milk is for baby cows.

Cow milk is a part of human culture that has enabled us to settle in places where we otherwise couldn't have. There's a reason lactose tolerance in Scandinavia is so high. In Winter, you can't get enough calories from crops. The only thing you have is inedible (to you) grass and bushes. Cattle is a way to convert that to something that can provide calories to you. The lactose intolerant in those places have been wipe…

Appreciate the historical facts yet don't see how we can draw from it that milk is good/bad/whatever?

Taking your argument to extremes: Historically slavery enabled us to farm huge plantations which we couldn't otherwise have... ?!

If at all, following your argument, you seem that say that historically humans only consumed milk in inhospitable places.

Re: Aubrey Plaza Is the Unfortunate New Face of the Milk Wars

#50

Post by malermeister »

marcinzm wrote: post #36
malermeister wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cow milk is a part of human culture that has enabled us to settle in places where we otherwise couldn't have. There's a reason lactose tolerance in Scandinavia is so high. In Winter, you can't get enough calories from crops. The only thing you have is inedible (to you) grass and bushes. Cattle is a way to convert that to something that can provide calories to you. The lactose intolerant in those places have been wipe…

And is it still used for that purpose? If not then I'm not sure why it matters what it was used for before?

Because it created an entire culture around it, our people's history. Parmigiano Reggiano was loved by Boccaccio already. Homer's Odyssey talks of what we would call Feta today. Egyptian murals detail cheesemaking.

Today, too, dairy is an important aspect of many cultures.

> Sandra Ott’s fascinating ethnography of Basque shepherds (Ott 1981) reveals much about the central role cheese can have in everyday life. In the remote French Basque Pyrenean village of Sainte-Engrâce, the cheeses that local syndicates of shepherds produce from their mountain huts takes so much care and attention that the resulting product is treated both metaphorically and ritually as their “children”. The formation of both babies and mountain cheeses alike are seen as analogous processes in the local worldview: “men’s generative creativity in procreation as in cheesemaking is believed to convey not only form but also identity. Basque cheeses, no less than children, have paternity and come from patrilineages (Paxson 2013: 52)”.

https://hraf.yale.edu/the-social-life-of-cheese/

Dairy products aren't just food. They're millenia old culture and identity.

Post reply on HN