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

The rise of alternative milks

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 214 posts

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#161

Post by yowlingcat »

seanwilson wrote: post #156
rlue wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same with meat alternatives. I politely disagree. 1. If you don't want people to expect it to taste identical, don't call it a "meat alternative". Just call it what it is (“soy patty”?), and then people will expect it to taste like that. 2. Have you tried the Impossible Burger? It’s pretty damn close.

I'd say if you want to reduce meat consumption because you care about climate change but you'll only switch if alternatives tastes identical to meat you probably don't care that much. Maybe beef burger replacements are coming but we're not going to have indistinguishable alternatives to bacon, whole roast chicken, pulled pork, sirloin steak, duck etc. any time soon so people are going to have to be less picky for glo…

Maybe you care about it a good amount but don't believe in consumer climate control? If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming as well as support and push for vat grown meat, you end up decoupling these things. It's important to note that carnivores have existed for many, many years, and that it's also possible to construct clean, sustainable factories but we just choose not to, likely due to a lack of regulatory coordination, interest and pressure.

I think it's important to separate the utilitarian argument from the moralistic argument here. Climate change is in large part accreted by large corporations, and the manner that they interact with corporate social responsibility and regulation is largely what has the potential to change things. Beyond that, it's hard (though not impossible) to get the same macronutrient profile without meat consumption. And beyond pure nutrition, many gastronomic entities are simply out of reach. I think you have to really think about what the purpose is of food (lots of sides to that) and not work backwards from the premise that meat consumption is intrinsically a poor choice.

Vat grown meat technology is progressing at a pretty impressing clip from what I've seen. I think that's probably the technological change that will make this a lack of an issue.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#162

Post by yowlingcat »

mnm1 wrote: post #118
dashundchen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what region you are in, but in the US almost any store that stocks non-dairy milks will sell sweetened and unsweetened. Though I agree with disliking the sweetened stuff. I'm not sure who the market for the sweetened stuff is for - coffee creamer maybe, or trying to simulate milk lactose? but the unsweetened works just as well in any scenario. Additionally, nut and oat milks are very easy and cheap to ma…

Yeah but the problem with unsweetened soy and almond milk (and even slightly sweetened) is that it's fucking disgusting so it has no use for me and for anyone that feels that way. I highly doubt any of the other veggie milks here are less disgusting. I would guess that lactose free milk is also disgusting before they add sugar back in but can't prove it.

Perhaps that's coming from the preparation of the milk and not the milk itself? I personally really dislike any kind of a sweet milk and sweet flavors in general, so I've learned to appreciate the different flavors for what they are. Expanding your palate is not a given (at least not for me), it's sometimes a thing you've got to actively put effort into, and it's also something that changes as you get older.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#163

Post by andrewvc »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #113

If someone is looking to switch for sustainablity reasons, they shouldn’t be buying liquid non dairy almond either. You must need a handful of almonds to make your own almond milk. It’s wasteful in so many ways..from processing to transporting to the water content and all the middle men charges in the supply chain. Soak almonds. Peel. Purée with water..strain. Or don’t. Fresh almond milk. I realize many people won’t…

Almond milk is still way more sustainable than cow milk. Maybe not as much as homemade but still an improvement.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#164

Post by seanwilson »

yowlingcat wrote: post #161
seanwilson wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say if you want to reduce meat consumption because you care about climate change but you'll only switch if alternatives tastes identical to meat you probably don't care that much. Maybe beef burger replacements are coming but we're not going to have indistinguishable alternatives to bacon, whole roast chicken, pulled pork, sirloin steak, duck etc. any time soon so people are going to have to be less picky for glo…

Maybe you care about it a good amount but don't believe in consumer climate control? If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming as well as support and push for vat grown meat, you end up decoupling these things. It's important to note that carnivores have existed for many, many years, and that it's also possible to construct clean, sustainable factories but we just choose not to, li…

> If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming

Is this actually a feasible solution if meat is fundamentally inefficient?

"It would be far easier to feed nine billion people by 2050 if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomachs. Today only 55 percent of the world’s crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent). Though many of us consume meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feedlots, only a fraction of the calories in feed given to livestock make their way into the meat and milk that we consume. For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-bi...

"Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-red...

> Vat grown meat technology is progressing at a pretty impressing clip from what I've seen. I think that's probably the technological change that will make this a lack of an issue.

I used to think this but it seems really silly to me now. We're going to require cutting edge technology to find a solution to the problem that people are too stubborn to adapt a little to combat climate change?

There's plant based alternatives that exist today that taste somewhat like meat that don't require expensive technology and research to produce. We already know how to grow plants on a massive scale and I can't see how vat grown meat is going to compete with that any time soon.

The requirement that we must have something that's close to indistinguishable from meat for people to switch seems an impossible bar to reach. Are people going to stick to cow milk until we devise technology to make a milk like product that's indistinguishable as well?

Perhaps if meat was taxed based on its contribution to climate change people would be less picky. Waiting on vat grown meat doesn't sound like a realistic solution, especially given what's being said about the time we have to act on climate change.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#165

Post by lern_too_spel »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #159
yesenadam wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't tell people they're lying on HN when you have no idea whether that's true. (Apologies if you know the person you responded to well enough to know they're lying - I'm assuming you don't.) edit: Ah, I should have quoted, lesson learned. The comment began "Please don't lie", which has been removed, and people are downvoting me and responding as if I'd read the edited comment, so mine appears nonsensical.

> ...when you have no idea whether that's true If you're familiar with soy milk and almond milk, it's a pretty dubious claim. The most well known brand in the US is Silk, which contains no such whitening ingredients that I have seen (see https://silk.com/products for ingredient information) nor have I encountered any other brands that contain whitening ingredients. I think it's justifiable to say that claim is a fals…

All of Silk's milks contain calcium carbonate, which serves the dual purpose of whitening the milk and calcium fortification.

http://www.ddwcolor.com/natural-colours/calcium-carbonate/

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#166

Post by Pharmakon »

gorilla_fight wrote: post #142
Pharmakon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pure marketing, where the reality would be “juice” if we’re being charitable. In a lot of cases it’s water with a hint of X, and a lot of added sugar. All told drinking a lot of anything other than water is probably a bad move, but evidence suggests that if you’re not lactose intolerant, milk is a healthier choice for what you put on cereal. All things being equal, my major issue with alternative “milk” isn’t th…

I prefer this alternative naming by The Onion: https://www.theonion.com/fda-defends-decision-to-reclassify-... Astute as ever, America's finest news source turns this marketing-driven terminology on its head. This has happened before, industries creating imitation products deceptively similar to the real thing. For example in the early 1900s, states fought back against fake butter, but were ultimately overruled by th…

That was a really good read, and of course it would be Wisconsin who fought to the end for dairy. Personally I’m not interested in regulating “milk” and the term has been around for a while. I just think it’s worth pointing out the differences, but dying it a strange color is... too far.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#167

Post by Pharmakon »

gorilla_fight wrote: post #146
PerfectElement wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> low in protein and fat is a bad sign. By that standard, human breast milk should be considered unhealthy (0.8%-0.9% protein, 3%-5% fat).

3-5% fat is actually considered high-fat, for comparison, cow's whole milk is typically 3.25%, low-fat is 1% and skim/non-fat is 0-0.5%. Interestingly, the fat content of milk can vary drastically between species, from Holstein cows 3.6% (popular for high volume milk production, but less fatty), Brown Swiss cows 4.0%, Jersey cows 5.2% (prized for their rich creamy milks), Zebu cows 4.7%, goat 4.0%, up to buffalo 6.9%…

I’m loving your posts, and here’s a fun fact to add, fat content can vary between pregnancies, and there seems to be a difference based on the sex of the fetus, time of day or night, and a bunch of other factors.

https://www.imedpub.com/articles/biochemical-differences-in-...

Human milk composition is dynamic, and varies between mothers in the same and different populations. Breast milk content was also found to vary diurnally, over a feeding and in some species according to the gender of the breast feeding infant. This study aimed to determine if there are any quantitative differences in the biochemical constituents of breast milk according to the gender of the breast feeding infant. Forty eight breast feeding mothers participated in the study, 24 were breast feeding male infants and 24 were breast feeding female infants. Five ml of breast milk was collected from each mother then analyzed for lipid contents, carbohydrates, proteins and calcium. Carbohydrates, amino acids and calcium concentration were measured using colorimetric test of absorbance. There were significant differences in the concentration of lipids and calcium in breast milk of male and female breast feeding mothers (P-value

Biology is damned complex.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#168

Post by pascalxus »

All those milks and yet i still can't find a single one that's not completely saturated with Calcium. The levels of calcium added to these milks is truely staggering. Sure, the carton says 30%, but it's actually 65% of your RDI because here in the US the dairy industry has been pressuring for higher and higher recommendations of Calcium. the WHO recommends 500mg, not 1200mg!

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#169

Post by fucking_tragedy »

nightski wrote: post #84
seanwilson wrote: post #67

I've completely switched to soy milk. It tastes a little different to cow milk but after a few cups of tea over a week I didn't notice anymore. Now cow milk tastes strange to me. Soy milk also lasts around a year unopened so you can save time buying it in bulk as a plus. People need to stop expecting replacements to taste 100% identical to what they're use to and give their tastebuds some time to adapt. Same with mea…

I don't drink milk. But we do buy a half gallon of heavy whipping cream twice a month from Costco. It's not about the taste, but macros. Try getting the same fat/protein/carb ratio with soy.... FWIW I still drink almond milk occasionally. But it's no replacement for heavy cream in my coffee. For me it's the same with fake meat. They tend to be carb heavy and little fat. Although beyond meat macros look pretty decent.…

Tofu and tempeh are protein heavy with little carbohydrates.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#170

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #165
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...when you have no idea whether that's true If you're familiar with soy milk and almond milk, it's a pretty dubious claim. The most well known brand in the US is Silk, which contains no such whitening ingredients that I have seen (see https://silk.com/products for ingredient information) nor have I encountered any other brands that contain whitening ingredients. I think it's justifiable to say that claim is a fals…

All of Silk's milks contain calcium carbonate, which serves the dual purpose of whitening the milk and calcium fortification. http://www.ddwcolor.com/natural-colours/calcium-carbonate/

I'm reasonably sure that it's there at levels sufficient only for the calcium fortification. Calcium carbonate was only approved for use as a food colorant by the FDA in late 2017 (e.g. https://sensientfoodcolors.com/en-us/regulatory/fda-approves...), many, many years after Silk was launched. Note that calcium carbonate is listed in the ingredients under the mineral and vitamin supplementation group.
Post reply on HN