Chemical reactions deplete nutrients in plant-based drinks
18 comments
·January 6, 2025pcthrowaway
sshine
The reason behind the author's choice of word is that an EU law passed in 2018, and subsequently a societal trend arose:
Supermarkets are not allowed to call it "soy milk", you have to call it e.g. "soy drink" etc. so you won't confuse it with cow's milk. Some brands challenge this by putting "m!lk" or "not m_lk!" on the packaging, which has been tolerated for years.
https://foodcomplianceinternational.com/industry-insight/new...
Surely the dairy lobby had something to do with it, but it's become mainstream.
zihotki
But plant drinks are technically closer to juices than to milk. The only difference is that you need to add water to dehydrated oat flour or anything else. You can also make a juice out of dehydrated fruits.
So is it the colour what makes a difference?
Also hot chocolate can be made with milk or plant alternative. And it will be a "plant based drink" only for the latter.
In Netherlands there was a case that a company was using word "milk" to market plant based drink. That didn't fly far, they were fined (AFAIR) and they had to stop that practice. Milk (and butter) by definition are animal products. For the same reason peanut butter is called pindakaas - peanut cheese.
pcthrowaway
Yes but juices are not something you use as a milk alternative.
The researches were specifically talking about "plant-based milk alternatives", as in "alternatives to milk". Hot chocolate may be a plant-based drink, but it is not a milk alternative. "plant-based milk alternatives" is a very clear label that avoids the debate around calling them milks.
My own opinion is that cow's milk shouldn't be labeled a human food, so I'm fine with "plant milks" and personally just refer to them "milk" in some contexts, but for the sake of packaging and writing for the general public, I think clarity is important, and "oat milk" or "oat-based milk alternative" are both much clearer than "oat juice", especially since commercial products are rarely just one ingredient + water.
For example, you have "soy kefir", "soy yoghurt", and "soymilk", all different things and I don't see a case for "soy juice" being more accurate for soymilk than the other two.
Also you have "coconut water" and "coconut milk" and if we're going to call one of those a juice I certainly wouldn't go with coconut milk.
Designating it as a "milk" or at least a "milk alternative" is useful in indicating what role it might play in cuisine, and calling it a "drink" does not communicate the same thing.
Also, referring to plant milks with the word for "milk" (or local language variant) appears to be a tradition dating back at least 700 years in English (and longer for other languages): https://theliterarycucina.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/medieval_...
sshine
> cow's milk shouldn't be labeled a human food
But humans drink it?
> "oat milk" or "oat-based milk alternative" are both much clearer than "oat juice"
It doesn't get called "oat juice", it gets called "oat drink".
Calling it a milk when the macronutrients and amino acid composition is entirely not equal to animal milk is the misleading part.
> referring to plant milks with the word for "milk" [...] appears to be a tradition dating back at least 700 years
That is a valid argument.
And I believe it's not just archaic; plant liquids that resemble milk can be referred to as milk in a general meaning, rather than in the strict mammary gland output meaning of milk. But this general definition of milk is still separate from when alternatives to cow's milk are productized.
Recent EU law acts as consumer protection against the misconception that plant-based drinks are nutritionally one-to-one alternatives to cow's milk. While they may be healthy, or even healthier given the right total diet, you can't substitute milk with a plant-based drink and expect the same nutritional value.
By logical extreme, dyed water can be a plant-based milk alternative. And out goes consumer protection.
colordrops
It definitely reads like a cow milk marketing letter.
ortusdux
I don't know enough about the players to comment, but:
"This work was supported by funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant no. NNF21OC0066330) to MNL, and from “SOCIETÀ ITALIANA DI FARMACOLOGIA (SIF)” to MP. The funding agency had no involvement in the experimental design or interpretation of the results."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Nordisk_Foundation#Role_i...
"Concerns have been raised about the potential influence of the Novo Nordisk Foundation's agenda on the direction of scientific research. Critics express concerns about the potential effect of the foundation's allocation of funds on the diversity of research topics and perspectives within the Danish scientific community,[36] as it tends to prioritize projects that align with its strategic goals.[37]"
brudgers
One of the likely reasons for millions of liters of plant-based drinks ending up in the shopping baskets of consumers is that their climate footprint is often lower than that of cow's milk.
Some degree of lactose intolerance and longer shelf life after opening are other likely reasons.
taeric
With marketing being the most likely reason?
And it is frustrating to demonize long shelf life techniques without acknowledging how safe they make the food, as well.
klipklop
> cow's milk used in the study contains 3.4 grams of protein per liter, whereas eight of the 10 plant-based drinks analyzed contained between 0.4 and 1.1 grams of protein.
Did they put the decimal in the wrong place? It should be ~34g for milk....
EDIT: The study probably means mg/100mL right?
colordrops
The article speaks as if cow milk and plant milk are directly comparable. Plant milk isn't meant to be a direct one for one replacement for cow milk. The nutrition profile isn't the same regardless of heat treatment or shelf life. It also talks about heavy processing, but plant milk super easy to make at home with a minimal setup.
Also cow milk is full of hormones and inflammatory substances and most humans are not adapted to drink it.
SoftTalker
Adult humans (really, anyone older than a toddler) do not need milk of any type.
orochimaaru
Milk and dairy have been a human staple for about 5000 years now [0].
SirFatty
Captain Crunch would disagree with you on that point.
chillingeffect
My Summary:
> cow's milk used in the study contains 3.4 grams of protein per liter, whereas eight of the 10 plant-based drinks analyzed contained between 0.4 and 1.1 grams of protein.
3g/liter won't help people get enough protein. Neither will most plant milks, but cow milk has saturated fat that contributes to LDL cholesterol and diabetes and has a dense caloric content
> The levels of essential amino acids were lower in all plant-based drinks.
This is virtually the same thing as lower protein levels.
> seven out of 10 plant-based drinks contained more sugar than cow's milk.
So, don't buy the plant milk that has sugar added!
> The compound was measured at levels so low that it poses no danger.
ok.
> Both are reactive substances that could potentially be harmful to human health when present in high concentrations, although this is not the case here
ok.
Protip: drink flaxmilk! it has high protein, low calories, and high good fat content! protein content is the same as 1.5% milk
Almond milk is mostly just water. so while it doesn't have much beneficial, it has less harmful stuff () than cow milk
() sat fat, IGF-1 and other hormones, acne-causing, allergic to large % of world, possible (though not conclusive!) prostrate and ovarian cancer
chillingeffect
Wow, thanks for the down votes without any conversation! Did anyone who downvoted this actually try reading it? Do you disagree with any of it? Can you prove any of it wrong? Why the downs?
klipklop
I am guessing it’s because you (like the article authors) missed that it’s mg per 100mL. Milk is not 3.4g of protein per liter. 10x that number.
Just for anyone wondering, the article author seems to confusingly insist on calling these "plant-based drinks" rather than "plant-based milk alternatives" which the study uses.
That language choice alone made me suspect it was conducted by a dairy lobby. But it's the article author who made this decision, rather than the University researchers or funding institutions (which appear to be medical and pharmaceutical R&D firms).
Interesting case study in how writers using ideologically driven language can make their reporting so unclear as to be almost meaningless (there are people who insist on avoiding the word "milk" to describe anything derived from plants, but "plant-based drinks" is such a vague label it can refer to anything from juice to hot chocolate)