Talk:Plant milk

message: This revert was justified because the content written is not what the CDC site says, and the second source used is totally off-topic. The editor had written "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends only serving soy milk to children between the ages of 1-12 years-of-age, because most of the other plant-based milks fail the proper nutritional threshold for maintaining growth." 1) The CDC site does not address children 1-12 years, but rather infants under 12 months being weaned from breastfeeding. Fortified soy milk is discussed as a suitable cow milk substitute for children over 12 months. Although the CDC site is dated Feb 2022 and specifies fortified soy milk as a suitable cow milk substitute for children over 12 months, other major retail plant milks in the United States and Canada over the past few years (oat, almond, coconut) are all fortified with some combination of protein, B vitamins, vitamin D and minerals. 2) Editor RomanGrandpa chose to use this case report, which is both off-topic and unusable as a preliminary case report on only 3 people. Zefr (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come under the impression there is bias of some kind (intentional/non-intentional) to color against plant-based alternatives to dairy in so far two articles. "Plant milk" and "Plant cream" seem to disparage plant-based alternatives, attempting to mostly cast them negatively compared to dairy without framing context. Odin Vex (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No intentional bias, in the medical literature there is a lack of research on plant milks. Nobody knows the long-term health effects because we do not have the data currently. A lot more research needs to be done. This recent review notes this . Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but calling things "imitation" while the label has been deemed disparaging by proponents of plant-based alternatives could be considered bias. See Plant cream, as an example. "Some imitation cream..." could have been worded as "Some plant cream..." It's followed up by a price-comparative line from 1998. Language like "glues" could be considered a negative description. Everything about "Plant cream" appears to need modernization and more recent sources with perhaps more clarifying language. Odin Vex (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDC recommendations 

message: Suggested terminology used in this article could be considered biased.
"They suggest that children between 12 and 24 months may consume fortified soy milk, but not other non-dairy milks such as almond, oat and rice, which are deficient in key nutrients" is inflammatory without explaining what they "key nutrients" are intended for. It just disparages without educating or informing. " to support healthy growth and development in this age range" (or something to this effect) could possibly be used.
The description/label "imitation" has been considered by proponents of plant-based alternatives to dairy to be "disparaging" ("...the Plant-Based Foods Association stated the word "imitation" was disparaging..."). Perhaps "alternative" would be a better description or label. See "Labeling and terminology" for the back-and-forth between legal definitions and labeling. Odin Vex (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the word imitation is accurate. Non-dairy milk etc. is imitation. It may be produced by people who think it is better than the original; it may be healthier than the original; but it is not authentic milk from mammals. The European Union is very keen that any food labelling is 100% accurate and have banned the description 'milk' for plant based food. Note that they have not banned the product, just the misleading labelling. Perhaps if the manufacturers of Plant milk were more accurate with their names we could ditch the term 'imitation'. OrewaTel (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's misleading at all. Historically (past millennia), plant-based has been called milk with little to no distinction in various cultures around the world. This article itself mentions "One of the first reliable modern English dictionaries, Samuel Johnson's 1755 A Dictionary of the English Language, gave two definitions of the word "milk". The first described "the liquor with which animals feed their young from the breast", and the second an "emulsion made by contusion of seeds", using almond milk as an example." "A Dictionary of the English Language, sometimes published as Johnson's Dictionary, was published on 15 April 1755 and written by Samuel Johnson. It is among the most influential dictionaries in the history of the English language." I think manufacturers are entirely accurate to call it milk. Odin Vex (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

text: That last comment shows one of the problems with this article. White liquids are often called 'milk'. In particular white sap from plants is referred to as milk as for example Dandelion milk or Tobacco Plant milk. It's just a way of saying 'white liquid'. It does not suggest that the liquid is a food product. In particular the white sap of the Tobacco Plant is not only poisonous but is also a severe skin irritant. We have sources that claim that white sap has been called 'milk' since the 12th Century. Well of course it has. But this article is about milk substitute that is made from plants. Back in the 12th Century dairy milk was the only wholesome milk. Of course there were many substitutes and it has been estimated that before 1950 over 60% of what was sold as milk was not milk. However the adjuncts were things such as powdered chalk, flour and water. The idea that plants can be used to make a substitute for dairy milk is modern. OrewaTel (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Descriptions and Terminology