Slashdot Mirror
Should the Word 'Milk' Be Used To Describe Nondairy Milk-Alternative Products? (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration seems to have soured on nondairy milk-alternative products that use the term "milk" in their marketing and labeling -- like popular soy and almond milk products. In a talk hosted by Politico, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb announced Tuesday that the FDA will soon issue a new guidance on the use of the term. But he added that products aren't abiding by FDA policies as they stand now. He referenced a so-called "standard of identity" policy that regulates how milk is defined and should be identified. "If you look at our standard of identity -- there is a reference somewhere in the standard of identity to a lactating animal," he said. "And, you know, an almond doesn't lactate, I will confess."
He went on to explain that the issue is that the agency hasn't been enforcing its own policy or putting the squeeze on product makers -- and that it's time to get abreast of the labeling language. But, he admitted, curtailing the wording of non-moo juice labeling isn't an easy task because it means that the agency has to change its "regulatory posture." "I can't just do it unilaterally," Gottlieb said. Hence, the agency is putting together a new guidance for manufacturers to help skim the fat from the market. Gottlieb said the agency will soon tap the public for comments on the terminology and hopes to wring out a new policy within a year.
He went on to explain that the issue is that the agency hasn't been enforcing its own policy or putting the squeeze on product makers -- and that it's time to get abreast of the labeling language. But, he admitted, curtailing the wording of non-moo juice labeling isn't an easy task because it means that the agency has to change its "regulatory posture." "I can't just do it unilaterally," Gottlieb said. Hence, the agency is putting together a new guidance for manufacturers to help skim the fat from the market. Gottlieb said the agency will soon tap the public for comments on the terminology and hopes to wring out a new policy within a year.
Why, yes, yes it is.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
(I commented on this six years ago, yet people like you are still yelping "Betteridge's!" at every question-phrased headline without getting it:-)
"No, [Betteridge's law doesn't apply here]. This is an actual, legitimate question.
As I correctly predicted [earlier that same year], lots of Slashdotters have seized upon Betteridge as the latest fad kneejerk response, and are misapplying it without understanding what it means. In his own words, Betteridge's Law applies to cases where journalists "know the story is probably bollocks, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it."
For example, without the evidence to back it up, a headline saying "Tomato ketchup caused AIDS that led to exitinction of dinosaurs" would be obvious crap and lead to criticism of the paper and/or journalist. OTOH, "Did Tomato ketchup cause AIDS that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs?" gives them the weasellish get-out of "Well, we didn't actually *claim* that it did".
Even then, if a question headline was a genuine attempt to present a plausibly-supported but not universally-accepted idea (possibly because it was new and/or divisive), then Betteridge's wouldn't apply.
In short, Betteridge's original observation was insightful where he claimed it applied, but it was never a blanket dismissal of question headlines, so please stop the tedious, kneejerk misapplication."
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I think it would be fair to call non-dairy from vegetable matter milk, milk just as long as it can be used as a replacement for dairy milk.
A protein rich fluid, either from an animal, or from plant matter, if can be used for similar food preparations. Say for baking could safely be considered Milk. just as long as it is noted that it is non-dairy and from what type of plant, as to help people avoid allergic reactions. As a lot of non-dairy milk comes from nuts and seeds which some people have allergic relations too, (As some people have an allergy to Milk (Allergy vs intolerance))
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"Carob works on the principle that, when mixed with the right combination of fats and sugar, it can duplicate chocolate in color and texture. Of course, the same can be said of dirt." - Sandra Boynton
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
If they can't call it milk, they should call it "better-than-milk". That should keep the dairy folks happy.
Unless it comes from the mammary gland of a mammal then by definition it is not milk.
Actually, the definition of "milk" includes any liquid resembling the opaque white liquid secreted by mammary glands of female mammals. When you claim that something is so "by definition", maybe you should look it up, just to be sure.
Well, you can cook with both of them, put them on your cereal, and drink them. How are they not interchangeable?
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Here's a list of things you should fight next:
Peanut butter
Almond butter
Cocoa butter
Cream of Wheat
Grape Nuts
Milk of Magnesia
Good luck with that!
Almond and soy milk are sold as cow milk? That's outrageous!
No, wait... almond milk is actually called almond milk, and soy milk gets sold as soy milk. It's not even "milk". It's without fail sold with the qualifier "almond" or "soy".
And sorry, if people are too stupid to know that you don't squeeze cows and milk almonds, I have very, very little sympathy for them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is nothing but marketing bullshit intended to confuse customers into believing they are somehow substitute products when they aren't and do not share the same properties.
Seriously?! You think anyone has ever been fooled into thinking non-dairy milks are actually milk? They'd have to be much stupider even than the average consumer.
Calling them "milks" (always with a modifier to make clear they are not milk, e.g. "soy milk" or "almond milk"--NO ONE calls their non-dairy milk simply "milk") helps people to understand that they are similar, and that they may be useful as a substitute for the thing they are being compared to.
What's far more problematic than non-dairy milk substitutes comparing themselves to dairy milk as an accompaniment to cold cereal or beverages (but never claiming equivalence to milk) is companies such as Nestle which throw massive marketing efforts behind convincing mothers that fake milk (aka a synthetic "formula") is superior to their own, true milk, which as you correctly observe can only come from the mammary gland of a mammal (and ideally one of the same species as the infant that's consuming it).
I too have a habit of wanting to take things very literally, and can relate to your having a pet peeve about language.
But the word "milk" and the adjective "milky" have been used to describe so many things that aren't produced by mammals--think coconut milk, milkweed, milk of magnesia, milk thistle, milk paint (yes, usually actually made with dairy milk), milk glass (milky-colored; not glasses for milk), ... that I hardly think this is a fight worth fighting.
Unless you're the dairy industry, of course. Then, you have big money to lobby the government to change widely-understood and accepted language in hopes of making dairy substitutes less attractive and marketable to your customers. Especially when you have a government in power that is actually even more friendly to massive, well-established "homeland" industries than those of decades past.
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
Queer was once a word for odd or strange. Then it became a slur toward non-heterosexuals. Now it's something the once slurred community has taken ownership of.
It still means odd or strange. That's why it was used as a description for homosexuals.
Read Shakespeare and apply modern meanings to the words. Lots of things will break, or tragedies will gain comedic value.
Uh, many of them were intentionally written that way. Hell, Shakespeare created many words in order to get a lot of sex jokes in.
The meaning of "knowing" someone has definitely changed since the King James Bible. How many people do you "know"?
No, the meaning of knowing someone hasn't changed. The Bible's "knowing" of someone referred to carnal knowledge. The word didn't mean something different back when that version of the Bible was written, the Bible merely euphemized fucking.
Bad. Yes, the word bad. Which still means bad, but under the correct circumstances can be good. For instance, "bad ass", which actually can also mean two things.
No, bad still means bad. Even in Michael Jackson's song/video, it meant bad. It's use as a positive adjective doesn't come from a negation of the meaning of "bad", but from the perspective of people seeing things that are morally bad as positive. A bad knee is a bad knee, and that's good to no one. A bad dude is a bad dude to all, but to other bad dudes that's a good thing.
This is the reality. It causes the legal system lots of problems, frankly, because it's hard to legislate a natural cognitive process. Also, it's hard to legislate around a natural cognitive process.
It's not a natural cognitive process, however. You have to learn these specific words and how to use them. And we've been dealing with how people use words for a long time. If you say something and you use the wrong words, you're incorrect or lying. We're not asking if a hot dog is a sandwich or not, we're asking if non-milk things can be called milk.
Almond milk is no more juice than it is milk. It doesn't come from a fruit, and it's not pressed out of a plant as a liquid. It is a white mixture of protein and fat suspended in a liquid, and in that regard is much more like milk than juice. Just because the marketing department came up with a sensible thing to call a product, doesn't mean they are conniving to deceive anybody.
Next thing you know, people will be all pissed off because peanut butter isn't really butter. When it comes to names we have given things, "we have always done it that way" is a perfectly cromulent argument. If everybody knows what almond milk is, then changing the name to something else will cause more confusion, not less.