The rise of alternative milks • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#191

Post by Havoc » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 12:10 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #15

Havoc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soylent isn't really aimed at health, more convenience & novelty. Its not unhealthy either, but you get my point

I’d suggest it is unhealthy. We don’t even know what all is in the food we eat, so to pretend we can combine a bunch of synthetic stuff into some well rounded meal for daily consumption I believe is dangerous.

Is that really that different from the stuff we put on a plate? That too seems reasonably arbitrary as to what's in it.

Soylent is at least somewhat balanced. Everything is in a ratio that someone at least actively looked at. When I cook up a meal it certainly isn't.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#192

Post by amaccuish » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 1:01 PM UTC

MrMember wrote: post #134

bpicolo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The texture of oat milk is offputting for me. So thick

I'll mix oat milk with coffee but I cant drink it plain. The texture and taste are not good.

I also can't do oat milk plain, but with cornflakes it works out quite well.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#193

Post by Someone » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #185

erikpukinskis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? I would expect the variance in the sustainability to be quite high, with the most sustainable (pasture fed) dairy farms being much better than the average almond milk producer. That’s just an intuition though. Also assuming we’re talking per gram of protein and fat here. Cup for cup almond milk might be more sustainable but there’s far more nutrition in a cup of cow milk.

An almond tree lasts for decades while a dairy cow has a considerably short life during which time she is abused by the Ag system and releases methane, poop, consumes a lot of inputs and a lot of water and labour and fossil fuel and electricity and refrigeration. It costs a dairy farmer more to produce a gallon of milk than it costs the consumer to buy it. It’s an industry entirely supported by subsidies. So it’s not…

”An almond tree lasts for decades while a dairy cow has a considerably short life”

That doesn’t matter, sustainability-wise. What matters is that the cycle gets closed, not its duration. Insects typically live shorter than mammals, but eating them instead of cows and pigs is a net win.

”and a lot of water”

California produces about 80% of the world’s almonds, and each nut requires 12 liters of water that do not get replenished.

”It’s beyond unsustainable.”

Not that different from almonds.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#194

Post by yowlingcat » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #164

yowlingcat wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

I don't disagree with your last point! I think it is about incentives and it's likely that the agro lobby (at least in the USA) is resulting in subsidies to meat that artificially lower its actual cost. But I will say that specifically, I find it very hard to get my omega 3s in a sufficient (and cost effective) quantity outside of meat and fish. The ratio of omega 3s to omega 6s is not great in many plant substitutes. I think it's only chia and flax seed that have a comparable ratio to grass fed beef, and even then, you don't get the same macronutrient profile as in fish. This is the case everywhere with meats and fish -- you actually can't completely replace the macronutrient profile with vegetables. You can get close, but you lose out on things, and this is especially the case for parts of nutrition that we're still continuing to learn more about. This is my oversimplification, but I think there's a reason why humans have been omnivorous for most of their history; personally, I've always felt most healthy when I've been omnivorous but leaning towards a plant based diet (easier to keep it diverse)

I'm a little curious as to why you didn't address my other points. I really don't agree with the premise of that guardian article. We need huge reductions to corporate emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. I think it's a bit of an anthropomorphic fallacy to believe that our consumption habits have a larger impact on the climate than demonstrably larger corporate contributors. It's pleasant to believe that we really have that much direct agency. But, it's wrong. If we really want to battle climate change, it requires coordinates, global pressure to the top.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#195

Post by 7952 » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

dabbledash wrote: post #52

Using “milk” in the name of something doesn’t make an “alternative milk” in any way that doesn’t apply to any other drinkable liquid.

It means that it can be used in contexts where milk would usually be used. Like in a pancake or over cereal.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#196

Post by craftyguy » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #180

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The goal of food must be that it’s is calorie and nutrient dense with as little expenditure or harmful. Hopefully we can find plant based alternatives and anything from perennials would be better. Like tree nut milks. The cost of dairy milk is the methane side effect that is actually more harmful to our eco system than carbon ..especially with our changing climate. I really like what’s happening with synthet…

Food must also be delicious. Sapping joy out of life is not really a fun way to, well, live.

'Delicious food' is very much a modern human invention. The vast majority of human history is full of foods that sustain life, but rarely 'delicious'.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#197

Post by seanwilson » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 4:45 PM UTC

yowlingcat wrote: post #194

seanwilson wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 an…

I don't disagree with your last point! I think it is about incentives and it's likely that the agro lobby (at least in the USA) is resulting in subsidies to meat that artificially lower its actual cost. But I will say that specifically, I find it very hard to get my omega 3s in a sufficient (and cost effective) quantity outside of meat and fish. The ratio of omega 3s to omega 6s is not great in many plant substitutes…

> you actually can't completely replace the macronutrient profile with vegetables. You can get close, but you lose out on things, and this is especially the case for parts of nutrition that we're still continuing to learn more about.

Do we have a history of eating so much meat, corn and diary? Humans in history have had very varied diets depending on location as far as I understand and the existence of vegan + vegetarian athletes is very convincing to me we don't need meat.

> I'm a little curious as to why you didn't address my other points.

Which ones? I probably tried to implicitly.

> We need huge reductions to corporate emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. I think it's a bit of an anthropomorphic fallacy to believe that our consumption habits have a larger impact on the climate than demonstrably larger corporate contributors.

Given these figures, do you still think believe this?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding... "The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions."

> If we really want to battle climate change, it requires coordinates, global pressure to the top.

Yes, but consumers definitely have an influence too. There's certainly been more demand for meat-free products in the last decade which companies are acting to profit from for example.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#198

Post by yowlingcat » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #197

yowlingcat wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with your last point! I think it is about incentives and it's likely that the agro lobby (at least in the USA) is resulting in subsidies to meat that artificially lower its actual cost. But I will say that specifically, I find it very hard to get my omega 3s in a sufficient (and cost effective) quantity outside of meat and fish. The ratio of omega 3s to omega 6s is not great in many plant substitutes…

> you actually can't completely replace the macronutrient profile with vegetables. You can get close, but you lose out on things, and this is especially the case for parts of nutrition that we're still continuing to learn more about. Do we have a history of eating so much meat, corn and diary? Humans in history have had very varied diets depending on location as far as I understand and the existence of vegan + vegeta…

I agree with you that humans in history have had very varied diets. Some humans have had a very long history of lots of meat and dairy. Some have a history of eating grains, pulses, vegetables and other plants. It really depends on what point in time, what civilization and which geographical area we're talking about. Humans are remarkably capable of adapting to a very wide variety of diet when they need to. At any rate, I'd like to show a chart:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

And this is just in the USA. Only 9% of emissions comes from agriculture. Even if you cut out all of that, you don't even nearly make a dent in greenhouse emissions. The real challenge is figuring out how we clean up our transportation, energy and industrial infrastructure. The problem is, consumption doesn't necessarily have an impact there.

I think I principally just really disagree with you about consumer activism. I think that the reason why regulation was needed in the first place in order to accomplish many overall wins was because consumer activism is just too weak. Long term, externalities will produce a race to the bottom that is disastrous for society -- individuals don't give things up for moral reasons, they give them up because of incentives. I think we need to close the feedback loop and take the negative externalities of all of these contributors to climate change and integrate them back into our financial, political and social incentives system.

But that requires us to take aim at businesses. Big businesses, of course, would rather us take aim at each other as consumers. If consumers are busy policing each other, they'll get distracted from ever holding the big businesses to task when they're not doing their fair share. And of course, it's scary to hold them to task. They have endless resources, they can bury individuals in court, lobby politicians, spend on PR campaigns that serve as risk mitigation for their regulatory costs. It's much safer to change your behavior as a consumer and moralize other consumers if they don't change their own.

But again, it has limits. Once you get beyond those limits, consumers do not have influence. But, consumers are citizens, and citizens have influence over their country. They can participate in their communities to perform direct action, they can run for office to effect political change, and they can organize to vote for politicians that can make changes that help society run better. I believe in there being more than consumerism to citizenship (not saying you don't).

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#199

Post by thebigspacefuck » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

picodguyo wrote: post #55

classichasclass wrote: post #4

I put away about three gallons of milk a week. I just drink a lot of it (and obviously lactose intolerance isn't a problem). I can't ever stomach these. My wife, on the other hand, budgets her lactose intake, prefers lactose-free milk (which I find unpleasantly sweet), and will readily drink almond and soy milks which I can't stand. But I'm firmly ready to believe that I'm the dinosaur here.

Milk was always my favorite drink and I consumed 2+ gallons a week as well (full fat). Last year I decided to test out weaning myself off of it to see what if any impact it would have on my body. I tried every alternative on the market and my findings were: 1. unsweetened hemp milk has the best taste and consistency but is too low in protein to be a full substitute 2. Silk's Protein Nutmilk has the next best flavor a…

Any impact on your body? I mostly switched because almond milk is lower calories and I used to drink a ton of milk so it seemed healthier. Now milk smells and tastes gross to me. But I've switched back and forth a few times, so I know that would go away if I went back.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#200

Post by seanwilson » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

yowlingcat wrote: post #198

seanwilson wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you actually can't completely replace the macronutrient profile with vegetables. You can get close, but you lose out on things, and this is especially the case for parts of nutrition that we're still continuing to learn more about. Do we have a history of eating so much meat, corn and diary? Humans in history have had very varied diets depending on location as far as I understand and the existence of vegan + vegeta…

I agree with you that humans in history have had very varied diets. Some humans have had a very long history of lots of meat and dairy. Some have a history of eating grains, pulses, vegetables and other plants. It really depends on what point in time, what civilization and which geographical area we're talking about. Humans are remarkably capable of adapting to a very wide variety of diet when they need to. At any ra…

> And this is just in the USA. Only 9% of emissions comes from agriculture. Even if you cut out all of that, you don't even nearly make a dent in greenhouse emissions. The real challenge is figuring out how we clean up our transportation, energy and industrial infrastructure. The problem is, consumption doesn't necessarily have an impact there.

See https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-red... and the link to the Nature article:

"The research also finds that enormous changes to farming are needed to avoid destroying the planet’s ability to feed the 10 billion people expected to be on the planet in a few decades.

Food production already causes great damage to the environment, via greenhouse gases from livestock, deforestation and water shortages from farming, and vast ocean dead zones from agricultural pollution. But without action, its impact will get far worse as the world population rises by 2.3 billion people by 2050 and global income triples, enabling more people to eat meat-rich western diets."

> I think I principally just really disagree with you about consumer activism.

What should consumers do then? Nothing? Demand better meat alternatives? Keep eating meat? Stop eating meat?

Would your views here change if you agreed consumption has a big impact?