Philosophical Vegan Forum

Jebus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:14 am

cornivore wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:37 pm The FDA defines milk as the lacteal secretion of a cow, and are trying to ban any non-dairy drinks from being called milk:

They already made it illegal to label non-dairy drinks milk in France.

Ah, and what are they calling the Milky Way Galaxy now? That is not a lacteal secretion! Who would want to drink milk if they called it a secretion anyway... "uh, you're not allowed to call that a soy secretion, who do you think you are". Milk is so absurd, and gross.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:47 pm I think it has more to do with marketability taking advantage of a ridiculous human habit; i.e. cereal must be eaten out of a bowl, in the morning while soaked in a white liquid.

I don't miss the experience...

cornivore wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:37 pm [ They purchase plant milk not because they got tricked, but because "they know it’s not from dairy." The Plant Based Foods Association also did a recent poll showing 78 percent of people who drink cows’ milk exclusively call the alternatives "milk", and 41 percent of all consumers buy both kinds —

Mistaking it for milk is just one issue, the more likely and serious issue is that consumers will mistake it for something nutritionally similar to milk when most plant-based "milks" have significant differences.

Milk isn't just a particular food, it plays a particular functional role in western diets. By mislabeling non-milk products "milk" people will use them in similar roles but they lack the same nutritional value which can lead to problems.

The FDA should follow Europe in disallowing "milk" as a label for non-dairy milk-like substitutes. The only reasonable alternative is to allow a functional definition based on use and nutritional value, for example, "thickened white fluid with at least 8 grams of complete protein per 100 calories, at least 200 mg of calcium per 100 calories and so on". But its easier to just relabel the plant milks.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:10 am Mistaking it for milk is just one issue, the more likely and serious issue is that consumers will mistake it for something nutritionally similar to milk when most plant-based "milks" have significant differences.

I think you are overestimating consumers' knowledge of nutrition. Very few of them would say anything besides "calcium" if asked. Either way, this would not be a problem since the "plant milks" are superior for human health than cow milk.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:33 am I think you are overestimating consumers' knowledge of nutrition. Very few of them would say anything besides "calcium" if asked. Either way, this would not be a problem since the "plant milks" are superior for human health than cow milk.

The issue has little to do with consumer knowledge, in fact, its because consumers have poor nutritional knowledge and that they just follow various functional "food rules" that this is an issue. The most problematic cases involve children, its common practice for toddlers to drink a good deal of milk and substituting a plant-based milk for real milk can result in a number of nutritional issues (not to mention dental health issues). For adults the issues aren't as acute since liquid milk usually doesn't make up a large fraction of their diet but if you replaced dairy as a whole with dairy substitutes it could be problematic.

In what sense is a plant-milk "superior for human health"? Many of them are little more than fortified sugar water and having a nutritionally adequate diet is obviously important for human health.

In any case, in the US the only plant-milk that is officially recognized as a substitute for milk is fortified soy milk. The FDA really needs to deal with this and since people promoting plant-milks are ignoring the real issues the dairy industry will likely have its way, that is, the FDA will just disallow "milk" to be used to describe plant-based beverages.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:19 pm The issue has little to do with consumer knowledge, in fact, its because consumers have poor nutritional knowledge and that they just follow various functional "food rules" that this is an issue. The most problematic cases involve children, its common practice for toddlers to drink a good deal of milk and substituting a plant-based milk for real milk can result in a number of nutritional issues (not to mention dental health issues).

The issue stems not only from poor consumer knowledge, but deceptive advertising/marketing toward vegans of plant milks being being nutritionally complete alternatives to cow milk. Some vegan activist groups also promote myths about cow milk causing osteoporosis and cancer, even when the vast majority of RCT's show exactly the opposite is true.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:19 pm For adults the issues aren't as acute since liquid milk usually doesn't make up a large fraction of their diet but if you replaced dairy as a whole with dairy substitutes it could be problematic.

This is only true of unfortified plant milks. There's no evidence that cows milk has any nutritional advantage over fortified milks like Soy or Protein Nutmilk.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:19 pm In any case, in the US the only plant-milk that is officially recognized as a substitute for milk is fortified soy milk.

That's why this deceptive marking is particularly egregious; milk is a staple food for children and teens in the west, for them it plays significant role in protein, calcium, and iodine intake. Since unfortified plant milks frequently lack these key nutrients relative to dairy milk, it would be best to eradicate the pseudoscience marketing and inform vegan parents, so that they can be sure to purchase the correct alternatives.

This problem could be easily fixed, if vegans were honest with themselves, and forced these companies to be honest with them. Tbh I don't think these disparities in iodine or protein should be that problematic. We have to look at context of the whole diet, and there are lots of other sources of these nutrients (including supplements and other fortified products). If some vegan parents aren't as concerned about making our milks nutritionally equivalent, then they need to be relying on other kinds of foods to help their children develop adequately.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:19 pm
In what sense is a plant-milk "superior for human health"?

In the sense that none of them have been linked to colon cancer, liver cancer, ovarian cancer, asthma, autoimmune diseases, arthritis, premature puberty, widespread intolerance and much more.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:19 pm Many of them are little more than fortified sugar water and having a nutritionally adequate diet is obviously important for human health.

I think most consumer know that going for the sweetened version is like choosing frosted flakes over corn flakes. The non sweetened versions are in no way harmful.

One thing that can be harmful between bovine secretions and rice milk is arsenic (especially if contaminated water gets into the milk).

This [study] suggests that both components of reconstituted formula—the powder and the water with which it is mixed—can be sources of arsenic exposure for formula-fed infants. Conversely, breast milk has been found to have relatively low concentrations of arsenic, even in women with high exposure via their drinking water.—Estimated Exposure to Arsenic in Breastfed and Formula-Fed Infants

The EPA likewise said that bovine milk does not contain as much arsenic from cows ingesting it in particular, however this does not keep it from being more concentrated in an infant formula that is bovine based. "The most commonly used infant formulas contain purified cow's milk whey and casein as a protein source". Another study reports that some of this depends on how much arsenic a cow ingests though: "In the experiments with lactating dairy cows, significantly higher levels of arsenic in milk were observed for cows fed either 3.2 or 4.8 mg of arsenic per kilogram of body weight from arsanilic acid or 3-nitro ".

Also, mycotoxins in plant beverages can be reduced through cooking, possibly during production, whereas they cannot be reduced at all through pasterurization or cooking with cows milk.

Aflatoxins decompose at temperatures of 237–306°C (Rustom, 1997); therefore, pasteurization of milk cannot protect against AFM1 contamination. Awasthi et al. (2012) reported that neither pasteurization nor boiling influenced the level of AFM1 in bovine milk. However, boiling corn grits reduced aflatoxins by 28% and frying after boiling reduced their levels by 34–53%. Aflatoxins: A Global Concern for Food Safety, Human Health and Their Management

"Data show that there is a seasonal trend in the levels of mycotoxins in milk, with these being higher in the cold months probably due to the prolonged storage required for the cattle feeds providing favorable conditions for fungal growth.": Mycotoxins in Bovine Milk and Dairy Products: A Review

Keep in mind that bovine milk is plant milk, because cows are fed plants, and apparently the toxins in such plant feed are present in cow milk. What makes dairy worse, as far as this goes, is that the toxins are harder to remove from milk than the plant foods, when prepared for human consumption. Rice for example can have its arsenic levels reduced by 60% if cooked in excess water and drained, whereas cows are fed things like rice bran, which is not prepared this way, so their milk may contain more arsenic from rice than rice milk would, if prepared carefully. I wouldn't presume that anything is prepared carefully though. High levels of arsenic have been found in rice milk and rice bran, so either type of milk should be avoided for that matter (rice gets more attention for arsenic content, but maybe they should have to list what the cows ate as ingredients in milk too, because it's in there—yes, it isn't just that you are what you eat, it's that you are what you ate eats—you are an ateeat)!

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:53 am In the sense that none of them have been linked to colon cancer, liver cancer, ovarian cancer, asthma, autoimmune diseases, arthritis, premature puberty, widespread intolerance and much more.

There really aren't any studies on specific plant-milks in the first place so of course there are no established links. But some of the ingredients used may be problematic, we don't know yet.

But milk hasn't been linked to much of what you just cited, in fact, in the case of colon cancer dairy consumption *reduces* colon cancer risk. Though there are some associations between milk consumption and certain reproductive cancers.

But this isn't how you evaluate a food, you have to look at its overall impact on health. For example in the case of cancer, while there are some associations with reproductive cancers there are inverse associations with other cancers like colon cancer. Dairy consumption doesn't seem to impacted overall cancer risk.

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:53 am I think most consumer know that going for the sweetened version is like choosing frosted flakes over corn flakes. The non sweetened versions are in no way harmful.

I have no reason to believe that, the vast majority of plant-milks sold are sweetened. And the consequences of the non-sweetened versions aren't obvious, they use various additives that could negatively impact people. But whether or not they are "healthy" isn't what I was discussing, regardless of whether they are "healthy" they still typically don't match the nutritional value of milk well. Yet people are using it in the same context as milk.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:39 pm This is only true of unfortified plant milks. There's no evidence that cows milk has any nutritional advantage over fortified milks like Soy or Protein Nutmilk.

That isn't true. Firstly my comment was about dairy substitutes as a whole but even in the case of plant-milks most are rather low in protein regardless of fortification. Also the fortification isn't that similar to dairy and is entirely unregulated, that is, beverages are being called "almond milk" regardless of how they are fortified.

And there is evidence that dairy has nutritional advantages, dairy is overall more nutritious than most plant-based "milks" and the nutrients have high bio-availability. With US guidelines fortified soy milk is the only alternative that is officially recommended as a substitute.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:39 pm This problem could be easily fixed, if vegans were honest with themselves, and forced these companies to be honest with them.....

Vegans don't represent a large market share, this is something that needs to be regulated by the government. Currently the FDA is turning a blind eye to the misuse of food terms in the case of mock products and hopefully that will come to an end. Though I doubt it will impact vegan behavior much, vegans tend to be in a world of their own.

I think that talking about the FDA responding to this as a nurtirional crisis is nonsense, because health supplements and vitamins are not regulated as far as actually containing any of the nutrients they claim to, and the FDA isn't doing anything about making sure those are particularly healthy for people who believe what the labels say. Obviously if anything can be called a "health food" or "healthy", etc., even if it isn't, then it's a stretch to think that milk is even more synonymous with health than the word healthy, or that they consider milk to be the one and only health food in existence. Especially when it had to be fortified with added nutrients to be considered among those foods, and it isn't the only fortified food. The CDC recommends fortified milk alternatives for children too. The game of semantics is probably based on politics and lobbying (like the food pyramid was), because the dairy industry might make more money and abuse that many more cows if nobody else could use the word.

This case has been laughed out of court in the past, but they say the FDA has been lobbied for years to keep trying to get a judge to be ridiculous about it too:

"The standardization of milk simply means that a company cannot pass off a product as ‘milk’ if it does not meet the regulatory definition of milk. Trader Joe's has not, by calling its products ‘soymilk,’ attempted to pass off those products as the food that the FDA has standardized (that is, milk)."

His comments echo those of fellow US district judge Samuel Conti, who threw out a similar case, noting that under the plaintiffs' logic, consumers might also "assume that 'flourless chocolate cake' contains flour or 'e-books' are made out of paper".​

Judge: ‘There is no conceivable justification for the assertions made in the FDA warning letters... about the word ‘soymilk’ so they do not support a claim that products with ‘soymilk’ in their titles violate the federal statute’

What about "freedom fries" though? Maybe they'll find a French judge to do something about renaming these things...