Philosophical Vegan Forum

Carnap, this is your last warning to provide evidence that cows milk has any nutritional advantage over nutritionally complete FORTIFIED milks like Soy or Protein Nutmilk, or I will cease future discussion on this topic with you.

See forum rules here:

Philosophical Vegan wrote:1. This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.

Making baseless assertions and refusing to engage in criticism is an obvious violation of this rule.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:14 am Your response here is strange, you seem to be confusing the word "most" with "all". I said most plant-based milks are low in protein, posting about a single instance of a plant-milk doesn't address what I've said.

You falsely stated that cows milk is more nutritious than “most fortified plant milks, without providing evidence. I countered your claim by showing you the nutrient profiles of Protein Nutmilk and fortified soy milk being comparable to cow milk, and linked to several dietitians recommending *fortified* plant milks as nutritionally complete alternatives. Provide evidence for your claim or move on to a new point.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:14 am In any case, the most widely consumed plant-based milk is almond milk which has just 1 gram of protein per serving. Coconut, cashew, rice, etc based "milks" are also low in protein. The protein fortified plant "milks" aren't that popular, probably because the protein fortification makes the taste/texture unpleasant. Soy milk is also not that popular because soy is seen negatively, ironically often by vegans.

I’ve already adresed that vegan dietitians and dietetic organizations do *not* recommend almond milk as an adequate standalone replacement for cows milk. Not sure why you keep repeating this point. If almond milk is comprised of a significantly large portion of a vegan’s diet, then they should analyze the full context of their diet and find another reliable source of protein, iodine, and calcium.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:14 am There are nutrients that cannot be readily added to vegan substitutes but its also not just about the nutrients themselves but also co-factors that are contained in milk. Nutrients in milk have high bio-availability, that is in part due to the specific form of the nutrients but also because milk contains compounds that increase absorption. This co-factors not only increase absorption of nutrients in milk but also other foods eaten at the same time.

I’d like to see evidence that nutrients in cows milk are more bio-available then nutrients in plant milk. You also need to provide evidence that there exists magical nutrients that cannot be added to vegan foods or taken in the form of supplements.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:14 am Also research on calcium supplementation, which would include heavy fortification, is looking increasingly grim. For example calcium supplementation has been linked to increased rates of heart disease.

You are being incredibly deceptive in your crusade to make plant milks seem dangerous. The 2013 study that you’re referring involved calcium supplements, not foods fortified with calcium. Either way, nutrition research is complicated and conflicting; this more recent meta-analysis that pooled findings from 31 separate studies of calcium intake and cardiovascular disease, found no cause for concern. http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/25717 ... a-analysis Researchers have not made a clear association between calcium supplements and the risk of heart attack or stroke. Additionally, many people take doses that are far above rda. Many women for example, take between 1,000 or even 1,500 mg daily. Vegans are not putting themselves at an increased risk of heart disease by drinking calcium fortified plant milks.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:14 am Not sure what "we" you're referring to but people are replacing milk with mock milk beverages like almond milk. That includes many vegans as well as non-vegans. Some people (mostly vegans) are also replacing other dairy products like cheese with mock versions as well.

“We” means the rational vegans of this forum, like me, who have been expressing this exact sentiment.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:14 am In fact, the entire allure of mock dairy products is that you can eat them in the same cultural context as real dairy products but that is precisely what makes them problematic.

I already addressed that in my first comment on this thread. See here:

Lay Vegan wrote:Unfortunately, when it comes to nutrition most of the plant milks pale in comparison to cow milk. Unless they're fortified with vitamins/minerals, they're probably nothing more than glorified sugar water.

I also wrote:

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.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:55 pm Carnap, this is your last warning to provide evidence that cows milk has any nutritional advantage over nutritionally complete FORTIFIED milks like Soy or Protein Nutmilk, or I will cease future discussion on this topic with you.

You can do whatever you want but I already explained some of the nutritional advantages. I usually don't bother referring to studies about topics that are well established because they are easy to find. But here is an example of a study that has looked directly at soy vs cow's milk:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1390610

If found higher bio-availability with the milk. Milk has compounds that enhance absorption while soy has compounds that reduce. Also its not clear what you mean by "nutritionally complete fortified milk". There are no fortified milks that are "nutritionally complete", cow's milk is also not nutritionally complete for a human.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:55 pm You falsely stated that cows milk is more nutritious than “most fortified plant milks, without providing evidence. I countered your claim by showing you the nutrient profiles of Protein Nutmilk and fortified soy milk being comparable to cow milk.

This is funny, you complain about me not providing evidence yet you just repeat yourself without justification. "Your wrong" isn't an argument nor justification.

You countered my claim in a way that was entirely fallacious and are now repeating it, is your understanding of logic really this poor? My claim was about "most plant milks" yet you're referring to a single instance, even if we assume your instance is similar it doesn't refute anything I said.
But you actually didn't even establish that your instance was nutritionally similar, you cited a nutritional label which only lists a very narrow selection of nutrients. Its similar in some values but not others, for example, milk is a good source of zinc while the plant-milk isn't. Now it is similar in protein, calcium and a few other nutrients. But the type of nutrient nutrient is different. "Calcium", for example, refers to a class of compounds.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:55 pm I’ve already adresed that vegan dietitians and dietetic organizations do *not* recommend almond milk as an adequate standalone replacement for cows milk. Not sure why you keep repeating this point. If almond milk is comprised of a significantly large portion of a vegan’s diet, then they should analyze the full context of their diet and find another reliable source of protein, iodine, and calcium.

Because I'm not talking about what people recommend, I've also noted that soy milk is the only alternative officially recognized as an alternative. I'm talking about what people are actually doing in the real world and almond milk is hands down the most popular plant-milk and people are using it as a replacement for milk. People are also using the various other mock dairy products as replacements and these are often worse than the milk case, for example, most vegan cheeses have no nutritional value at all. This is what is relevant in how food is labeled, labeling mock dairy products as "milk", "cheese" encourages people to use them as a replacements but that only makes sense if they are nutritionally similar.

Now fortified soy milk is nutritionally similar enough to cow's milk and has been studied and as such is supported as a replacement for milk. The protein fortified plant milks haven't been studied and the others are low in protein and aren't recommended. The various other mock dairy products aren't recommended either.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:55 pm I’d like to see evidence that nutrients in cows milk are more bio-available then nutrients in plant milk. You also need to provide evidence that there exists magical nutrients that cannot be added to vegan foods or taken in the form of supplements.

This is really a well know fact, same is true for meat. I provided a study above but you can find many more on the topic. Nutrients in animal products have high bio-availability which is due in part to the lack of inhibitors (e.g., fiber, phtyo-chemcials, etc) and also due to enhancers (and we don't entirely know why absorption is enhanced, just that it occurs).

Why would I provide evidence about magical nutrients? I haven't discussed magical nutrients.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:55 pm You are being incredibly deceptive in your crusade to make plant milks seem dangerous. The 2013 study that you’re referring involved calcium supplements, not foods fortified with calcium. Either way, nutrition research is complicated and conflicting; this more recent meta-analysis that pooled findings from 31 separate studies of calcium intake and cardiovascular disease, found no cause for concern.

There is nothing deceptive in what I said, fortification is no different than supplements. Its the same form of calcium and the amounts can easily be just as high. Many plant-milks are now being super-fortified with calcium at levels of almost 500 mg per serving, for example, the one you referred to.

And I never presented the research as being conclusive, just that the research has been increasingly negative.

Lastly saying things you don't agree with isn't a "crusade against plant milk". My primary argument here has been that mock dairy products shouldn't be referred to by "milk", "cheese", etc because they are in general nutritionally poor compared to dairy products. I reckon many vegans would agree when they weren't distracted with tribalism.

carnap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:50 pmhere is an example of a study that has looked directly at soy vs cow's milk:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1390610

If it happens in rats it must certainly happen in humans, given how identical the respective digestive systems are.

Jebus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:08 pm If it happens in rats it must certainly happen in humans, given how identical the respective digestive systems are.

Rats and humans actually have similar digestive systems and the rat studies allow you to rigorously study the metabolism of specific nutrients, in human cases you have to use a proxy which may not be entirely reliable.

In any case, what I'm discussing here is really just textbook nutritional science. The nutrients in milk (and other animal products) have high bio-availability where as bio-availability in plant foods is far more fickle. Dairy has some clear nutritional advantages but its by no means essential to the human diet, after all, most of the world's cultures consume little to no dairy.

This really has nothing to do with nutrition though. Like the other court case already concluded, it doesn't make sense to argue that something like "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter" would be misleading to people, and therefore should not be allowed to include the word butter, because you have to take it out of context to make this argument. Using the word in context is fine though, nobody has a problem with it, except the sleazy milk industry in this case (they are arguing that nobody can say it isn't milk, because it isn't milk—that nobody should be allowed to tell the truth)! Just like if you named something "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Milk", yet that's already what designating it as almond milk accomplishes, for example. They aren't calling it milk, they're calling it almondmilk, as in I can't believe it's not milk... because it's about the flavor and texture of it, not the nutrition facts, and if you still don't understand the concept, feel free to smash a pie in your face, thanks.

cornivore wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:17 pm This really has nothing to do with nutrition though. Like the other court case already concluded, it doesn't make sense to argue that something like "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter" would be misleading to people, and therefore should not be allowed to include the word butter, because you have to take it out of context to make this argument. Using the word in context is fine though, nobody has a problem with it, except the sleazy milk industry in this case (they are arguing that nobody can say it isn't milk, because it isn't milk—that nobody should be allowed to tell the truth)!

"I can't believe its not butter" says its not butter in the tittle so there is nothing to confuse. Also butter is pretty much empty calories so there is no salient nutritional issue at play in that case either. But someone thinking almond milk is regular milk isn't the issue I've been discussing, instead what I've been discussing is that people will buy almond milk thinking they can use in the same context of milk and that has everything to do with nutrition. "Milk", "cheese" are more than just labels for products, they also represent functional food groupings that guide people's dietary behavior.

So this is more than a labeling issue, its a public health issue. You can resolve this issue by either just banning the use of the terms "milk", "cheese", etc to describe non-dairy products or create functional definitions of the terms (i.e., definitions that describe the key nutritional points of the food). I think its better just to ban the use of the terms for non-dairy products and that is likely going to happen. Europe already moved in that direction.

This...

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:51 amDairy has some clear nutritional advantages but its by no means essential to the human diet, after all, most of the world's cultures consume little to no dairy.

plus this...

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:28 pmSo this is more than a labeling issue, its a public health issue.

equals... you've smashed a proverbial pie in your face.

Other than that, the milk industry and FDA are arguing that they defined milk as a secretion of a cow, so by definition if you call something almond milk, you are saying it is not cow's milk. It's the same as calling it "not milk", as in non-dairy or I can't believe it's not butter, or peanut butter, or almond butter. If someone can't comprehend that peanut butter is not dairy butter, they'd need assistance with all activities of daily living anyway, and couldn't make decisions on their own.

cornivore wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:35 pm This...

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:51 amDairy has some clear nutritional advantages but its by no means essential to the human diet, after all, most of the world's cultures consume little to no dairy.

plus this...

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:28 pmSo this is more than a labeling issue, its a public health issue.

equals... you've smashed a proverbial pie in your face.

Not sure why you think that follows. The labeling discussion is specific to the US and Europe, that is western culture. While dairy is not essential in the general scope of human nutrition it does play an important nutritional role in the western diet. Its the nutritional role within western culture that at issue here, if there were no standards of use for milk, cheese, etc in the culture then this wouldn't be an issue. But there are obvious standards of use for dairy products in western diets.

There's an obvious standard for a pie in your face, as far as that goes. I think this discussion is only being continued for the sake of argument, and I don't even drink plant milk or cow's milk (with its added nutritional value of pus and all), so it's really trivial to me, like the truth is to you. I learned a few more things about why a diet that includes dairy and other animal fats is less healthy in general, according to research done by every public health organization too (but that's just me).

If you don't want to address my argument that is fine but suggesting I don't "care about the truth" because I've argued against you is silly.

And I would note, issues of healthfulness aren't the same as nutritionally sufficiency. Nutritionally sufficiency is a necessary condition for a diet to be healthful but its not a sufficient condition. Public health organizations include dairy in their guidelines, they just recommend that you limit full-fat dairy products. Public health organizations don't distinguish fat by origin but instead type. There are guidelines to restrict saturated fat, those guidelines apply to fats of plant as well as animal origins. But these issues are independent of the risks of referring to nutritionally dissimilar products as their traditional counterparts.