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

201–210 of 214 posts

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#201

Post by yesenadam »

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…

> ...when you have no idea whether that's true

I was referring to whether it's true that it's a lie or not, not whether the claim is true or not. I seem to have not made that clear enough, sorry for that.

If someone says something false but they believe it's true, that's not lying. On the other hand, if someone says something true but they believe it's false, that is lying. Whether what they're saying is actually true or false is irrelevant to whether they're lying. Lying is saying something different to what you believe, with intent to deceive.[0] It's about a difference between what you say and what you believe. I think getting things wrong is a lot more common than lying on this planet, and labelling every getting-wrong of things a 'lie' should be considered harmful. Getting things wrong is natural, unavoidable, 'innocent' - lying is not.

[0] Or something like that - trying to make precise definitions is hard and not so useful.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#202

Post by yowlingcat »

seanwilson wrote: post #200
yowlingcat wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

They would if I agreed, but I don't. Consumers have every right to demand better meat alternatives, but I think that's more because they're tasty and cheaper if anything. But they should understand that their consumption doesn't really matter and is a red herring. If you care about help solve climate change, the first step is understanding the largest contributors to it. For what it's worth, I do think that industrial agriculture is heavily flawed and unsustainable. But that cross cuts across meat and plant based agriculture, and I think it has more to do with how we turn arable land into monocultures that deplete the soil and destroy biodiversity. That's a problem, for sure, but it's not the biggest problem as far as climate change is concerned.

The biggest problem with respect to climate change is sustainable industrial infrastructure. It is not enough to consume sustainable products. We must demand and politically organize for sustainable infrastructure globally -- demand the allocation of resources, the stewardship of research and infrastructural development that will require. I think moralizing about the choices of what people eat suffers from a bit of tunnel vision. I'm also skeptical of any study that draws conclusions about climate change based on 9% of something's contribution to it. What is expected to happen with the other 91%?

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#203

Post by [deleted] »

lprubin wrote: post #99
scoot wrote: post #88

My kids are variously vegan / flex, and since I only put milk in coffee, it wasn't worth keeping milk in the fridge for, so switched to one of their alternatives. Soy curdles, so almond it was, until I learned that it takes ~5 litres (1.1 US gallons) of water to produce a single almond! The Oatly post here a few days ago may have been a shill, but it was enough for me to try it. Far closer to the taste of cows milk t…

I’ve seen it estimated that it takes 2,000 gallons of water to produce a gallon of cow milk which would be twice what it takes to produce almond milk.

[deleted]

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#204

Post by Ar-Curunir »

craftyguy wrote: post #196
Ar-Curunir wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

Yes, but the point of human progress is not that we don't have to survive like our ancestors, but rather can thrive. Cases where the former occurs are not due to inherent necessity but rather due to faults of the dominant economic system.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#205

Post by jelliclesfarm »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #204
craftyguy wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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'.

Yes, but the point of human progress is not that we don't have to survive like our ancestors, but rather can thrive. Cases where the former occurs are not due to inherent necessity but rather due to faults of the dominant economic system.

there is always the issue of exponentially growth in population and shrinking natural resources like land, water and obviously climate change that are independent of economic systems.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#206

Post by rlue »

Knufen wrote: post #186
rlue wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even easier, peanuts are _very_ protein- and fat-rich with almost no carbohydrates. I boil and can a kilo of peanut soup every two weeks and chug a can for breakfast every day—25g proteins, 50g fat. Pouring it into a bowl with soy milk makes it a lot more palatable, but if you're just concerned about your macros, there are definitely more sustainable, plant-based ways to get 'em.

But this is only a half truth, in the sense that not all protein are equal. You can not get the same anino acid from plants as you can from meat. And that is without taking bioavailability into account.

According to sfgate[0], peanuts contain all nine essential amino acids, though they are relatively low in methionine. This can be supplemented with "almost any other plant food that is not a legume," including staples like wheat, rice, and oats.

[0]: https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/foods-make-complete-protein...

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#207

Post by kbutler »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #174
kbutler wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One is natural, one isn’t. Yes, but not the one you mean. Cow milk: can consume it straight as it is produced by nature, right out of the cow (but chilled is probably tastier). Can consume milks from lots of other animals, too. The only reason adult animals don't frequently consume milk is probably just availability. https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/64822/are-humans... has interesting info, including adu…

I don’t drink soy milk. Packaging is hardly relevant. You may have missed the part of the article that describes how most adult humans are lactose intolerant.

Almond and coconut milk? Yes, almost as natural as cow milk.

But why are you blending and steeping and straining the coconut/almond material instead of just eating it? Oh yeah, because you want it to be like what you'd get from "breastfeeding from a random animal" as an adult.

Lactose intolerance is about as relevant as nut allergies, except it's unlikely to kill you.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#208

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#209

Post by code_duck »

pofilat wrote: post #104
code_duck wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I’m not mistaken, the composition and origin are fairly similar. Milk is something that is excreted from a reproductive gland on a stock animal.

which is not where nails come from. Calling breast a reproductive gland is weird. It's a secondary sexual feature, sure, but it's a feeding gland, whose specific purpose is to provide edible nourishment.

Yeah, nails come from a similar process on a different part of the same animal. Not sure why you want to argue this point so much. To me, milk and cheese now smells like a bunch of old skin. Maybe you should try it and check back with your own results.

Your explanation of breasts is kind of odd, too. Biologically, the only purpose they serve is reproductive. Who exactly do you think is being fed by those glands? Your best friend’s mom? You are trying to say that nourishing your young is not a reproductive activity? Then what is it? Fine dining? If the purpose is to provide ‘edible nourishment’ for just everyone apparently, where are all the breast cafés? I would love some edible nourishment.

Re: The rise of alternative milks

#210

Post by mixmastamyk »

kbutler wrote: post #207
mixmastamyk wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t drink soy milk. Packaging is hardly relevant. You may have missed the part of the article that describes how most adult humans are lactose intolerant.

Almond and coconut milk? Yes, almost as natural as cow milk. But why are you blending and steeping and straining the coconut/almond material instead of just eating it? Oh yeah, because you want it to be like what you'd get from "breastfeeding from a random animal" as an adult. Lactose intolerance is about as relevant as nut allergies, except it's unlikely to kill you.

So cooking is unnatural to you? Uh huh.
Post reply on HN