Might have something to do with the billions spent on marketing meat and dairy. Pretty big industries with pretty big financial contributions to our wonderful politicians, for decades now.
I would probably be fine with replacing it with a lighter version of soylent (it's too thick to serve as milk), but the idea that we drink milk because of marketing, or that they're artificially inflating the nutrition you get out of milk, is laughable.
The plant "milk" lobby, on the other hand tries to trick me into buying their product every time I'm at the damn store by redefining "milk" to mean "that white liquid".... https://plantbasedfoods.org/plant-based-foods-association-te...
> Companies selling dairy alternatives are using easy to understand, clear, descriptive, and truthful language on labels. Our members and others in this category, are using common English words that consumers understand: milk, cheese, yogurt and butter. To our members, and to consumers, these words represent functionality, form and taste, not necessarily the origin of the primary ingredient.
That's bullshit and they know it. If you ask for butter, or cheese, or yogurt at the store and they give you a vegan product you'd be right to be annoyed. They approximate the food only at the shallowest level of perception and are very different foods to work with in the kitchen.
Also, I do like almond milk—just not as a milk replacement.
What? "Got Milk"? Milk mustaches on famous people and athletes? Come on.
> plant "milk" lobby, on the other hand tries to trick me into buying their product every time
Au contraire! That pesky, evil, plant milk lobby! Are you really that confused when it says "soy", "milk", "oat", "almond" right before "milk"?
So—you're saying NOBODY would drink milk if they stopped advertising after THOUSANDS OF YEARS of drinking it as adults (true with my genes!) and MILLIONS OF YEARS of juvenile mammalian existence? Extent is not the same as the sole cause. I drink milk because it makes me nostalgic for my childhood and hey, it's calories, baby! In any case, you conveniently cut out the meat of the sentence when you quoted me—milk advertises itself by being highly nutritious, which is less true of plant-based milks, which you typically gravitate to because you want milk but can't have it for reason X.
> Are you really that confused when it says "soy", "milk", "oat", "almond" right before "milk"?
It's actually rarely obvious in my experience, especially when they place e.g. Silk next to dairy. I've accidentally bought plant-based milk twice because I didn't recognize the brand and the plant-based nature was not emphasized on the packaging. This feels very intentional to me.
Partially related: I don't think I've seen a milk advertisement in years. Are they spending less or am I just avoiding the areas they're targeting (notably: video ads/). I swear I used to see them on billboards all the time. Maybe SF is just an expensive market to advertise to....
Nostalgia, huh? Is that worth the environmental damage and severe ethics concerns? Not to mention, uh, you're drinking a cow's milk that should be for its children. We're the only species that does that. It's so odd.
Soy milk tastes great, has a nice nutrition profile, and is actually good for you (and the environment, and the animals).
No, I am but a weak and flawed human that likes dairy and meat. Ideally I'd stop eating and drinking all of this today.
> Not to mention, uh, you're drinking a cow's milk that should be for its children. We're the only species that does that. It's so odd.
Life is odd. I will say that I grew up around dairy cows and they don't seem to mind what happens to their milk, so that is emphatically not a concern for me, and I would not have been able to be around cows at all if it weren't for the dairy market. (how's that for an ethical dilemma? the animals that will survive the ongoing extinction event are likely to be exploited by humans.) The environmental and humanitarian concerns (e.g. meat eating, farming conditions) are much, much larger concerns for me.
> Soy milk tastes great, has a nice nutrition profile, and is actually good for you (and the environment, and the animals).
I don't disagree with this at all. I'm not arguing FOR milk, certainly not from an ethical standpoint, I'm just pointing out the ludicrous double standard of people with clear agendas to push plant-based drinks who then talk shit about "big dairy". It's all manipulative and shitty—comparing the actual food is much more interesting.
No. It's not.
I like Dr. Fuhrman's equation: H=N/C. This equation expresses the concept that your health (H) is predicted by your nutrient intake (N) divided by your calorie intake (C). There's not a lot of nutrients in meat (all you get really is protein and iron), whereas in vegetables/fruits you get a whole vast assortment of proteins, vitamins, fiber, phytochemicals, antioxidants, etc.
Meat also has the problem of being a carcinogen, per the WHO [0].
> I have heard milk referred to as a superfood quite a bit.
Nope. It's not.
Milk has a ton of sugar, lactose is not well-tolerated by something like 80% of the population, and the proteins in milk are potentially carcinogenic. [1] Anyway, and that's just the nutrition angle - not even getting into the horrific ethics problems and environmental problems. We need to move away from meat. We can do better.
0. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
1. https://nutritionstudies.org/provocations-casein-carcinogen-...
Your whole post is ill-informed, but this is particularly nonsensical. Go look up nutrition information for any muscle meat and you'll see plenty more than just iron, to say nothing of organ meat.
Regarding protein, you get a broader amino acid profile from animals, but this doesn't really matter.
Yet I've cited the WHO and Dr. T. Colin Cambell, author of the China Study. Where's your evidence?
> Regarding protein, you get a broader amino acid profile from animals, but this doesn't really matter.
Completely incorrect. Soy and pea protein are very much complete proteins with balanced amino acid profiles.
How do you reconcile the environmental damage from your dietary preferences?
I'm really tired of this form of argument. The fact that you cited something doesn't necessitate its relevance, truth or your understanding of it.
You've also ignored the specific bit of your post I called out as more importantly inaccurate, so I'm really not interested in engaging any further.
This must be a marketing gimmick; eating animals is very nutritious—it's just not sufficient. However, this is the same as Avacado/acai berry/whatever.
I have heard milk referred to as a superfood quite a bit.