What is Milk?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently announced that they will not object to the word “milk” in product names like coconut milk, soy milk, almond milk, oat milk, and other plant-based beverages. Evidently, the FDA experts think consumers are smart enough to know that these aren’t dairy products, and the public isn’t going to be confusing them with dairy milk. This seems very obvious to me as these products aren’t new at all — they’ve been in use and called “milk” for centuries! The problem isn’t with consumers, it’s with the powerful dairy industry that hopes to regain a market share that they enjoyed for several decades — but this hasn’t been true forever!

A number of historic discussions recently have been pointing out that in fact, almond milk has been made and used for nearly 1000 years. And soy milk was invented even before that in China, and has been in use in the US for well over a century. Oat milk only dates back a few decades. But the use of the word “milk” for any milky liquid whether from a plant or from animal milk is not new in the least. The dispute over the commercial use of the word “milk” isn’t even new: it’s come up before with the FDA and the milk producers.

Outside the discussion of plant-based milk, there’s another possibility on the way: lab-generated milk proteins and enzymes. Products made from such vegetarian but chemically identical substances are already on the market, competing with both dairy milk and with plant-based milk. 

According to the Washington Post:

“Dozens of companies have sprouted up in recent months to develop milk proteins made by yeasts or fungi,…. The companies’ products are already on store shelves in the form of yogurt, cheese and ice cream, often labeled ‘animal-free.’”

 

Journalists and Peevers “Protect” the Word Milk

I can’t fault the dairy industry for trying to hold onto their customers (even the ones who are lactose intolerant). But the milk of human kindness runs cold in my veins when it comes to really careless journalists that claim that the word “milk” has always meant only cow’s milk: not even goat’s milk! Lovingly, these self-satisfied boobs describe how they are utterly peeved to hear a customer in Starbucks ordering a coffee with “oat milk”! Or “soy latte.” 

From an Atlantic article titled “Milk has lost all meaning” this claim:

“At this point, it’s unclear what milk is anymore.”

This is stupid! Here are some historic views of non-dairy milk.

From SECONDS Food History:

“Coconut milk … has been used in Southeast Asian, African and Indian cuisine for centuries (possibly longer); horchata, a drink made from tiger nut milk, was introduced to Spain from North Africa before the year 1000 CE; and doufujian, a precursor to soy milk, has been popular in China since the 14th century.”

From Atlas Obscura:

“Almonds have been central to Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cuisines as far back as the Roman era, yet almond milk is likely a religiously-motivated, European innovation. The first mention of almond milk appears in a medical context in 12th century Salerno, but it quickly spread from the Mediterranean as far as Germany, England, and Denmark. During Lent, European Christians were barred from consuming milk, as well as eggs and meat. So they needed a substitute….

“Animal milks were typically destined for cheese and butter production, not drinking, thanks to a lack of refrigeration. One could make a faux butter by combining almond milk, salt, sugar, and vinegar and straining the result, even if it sounds like a far cry from today’s almond butter (or real butter).”

Nutritionist Marion Nestle on "What this is about"

"Simple. The dairy industry does not like concoctions made from soy, almonds, cashews, macadamias, oats, peas, or other such plants to get to be called 'milk.' It argues that they are not as nutritious as milk and will confuse consumers into thinking they are the same. Most surveys show that the public understands the difference quite well and has reasons for choosing plant-based alternatives that may or may not have anything to do with nutrient contents (think: animal welfare, dairy fat, environmental protection, industrial production, or what have you)....

"For the record, I like dairy products. But the dairy industry is a mess (overproduced, increasingly consolidated, fighting public health and animal welfare concerns) and needs to get its act together. The FDA is not helping it get there with this decision"

 

Cartoon by Joe Heller 

What next?

Non-dairy creamers have been around for a number of years, along with plant-based whipped toppings and similar foods. These are designed to please people who have any reason to skip dairy products, whether based on taste, on health, on religious restrictions, or on ethical objections to animal products. Starbucks, for example, now offers many alternative types of milk and cream in their hot and cold beverages, and I can’t see what the peevers are so bothered about!

I wonder if the linguistic and food-history ignoramuses will come after creamed corn next: after all, the white liquid in the can, sometimes called “corn milk,” came out of the corn cob and kernels not from the cream-top of a pail of cow’s milk. What about tiger’s milk? “Leche de tigre, literally ‘tiger’s milk,’ is the citrus-based, spicy marinade used to cure the fish in classic Peruvian ceviche.”

What about shaving cream? Face cream? Will they condemn a monarch butterfly for loving milkweed with its white liquid sap?

Maybe a clown will throw a pie shell filled with Cool Whip in their faces. 

Shared with Elizabeth’s Tuesday blog party.

Text © 2023 mae sander. Images from product ads.

Contemplating Free-Range Britain

Illustration from Bee Wilson's New Yorker Article.

Author Bee Wilson, whom I quite admire, has an article in the current New Yorker about the coming changes in the relationship between Britain and Europe: "What Brexit Means for British Food."

Wilson points out that one of the now-nearly-forgotten motives that drove the formation of the European Union was hunger, as experienced especially during and immediately after World War II. The founders, she writes, hoped "to insure a plentiful food supply for entire populations." Their dream was "for Europe to become as self-sufficient as possible in food."

A number of very interesting points are made in the article, which does not buy the theory that the regulatory effect of Brussels has been negative and damaging. One impact she mentions, is the increase in variety and flavors since Britain joined. Wilson writes:

"The E.U. can’t take sole credit for the fact that the British now know pesto from salsa verde. Probably some kind of food revolution would have happened here anyway, just as it did in the States and Australia over the same period. But to contemplate Brexit is to see the extent to which Britain is not a food island. We eat food cooked by French and Italian chefs using European ingredients. More than a quarter of those working in food manufacturing in Britain are immigrants from within the E.U. We could not eat as we do without them. ... Over all, the impact of the E.U. on the British diet has entailed,... 'cultural exchange on a massive scale.'”

All in all, a very interesting article, which I recommend. I learned about it from a roundup of articles about the result of Brexit in Marion Nestle's blog, "Food Politics." Particularly interesting among her sources is an article in the Guardian titled "Britain's meal ticket? Food and drink at heart of referendum debate" (written before last week's referendum took place).

Nestle writes: "It’s obvious from reading all this that the effects of the Brexit decision are largely unknown. not easy to predict, but unlikely to be good."

New Food Guidelines 2015-2020 and What's Being Said About Them

Burns Park School lunch, October 1, 2015.
Our local elementary school. See this post.

"Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia M. Burwell and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack today released updated nutritional guidelines that encourage Americans to adopt a series of science-based recommendations to improve how they eat to reduce obesity and prevent chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans is the nation's trusted resource for evidence-based nutrition recommendations and serves to provide the general public, as well as policy makers and health professionals with the information they need to help the public make informed choices about their diets at home, school, work and in their communities."

Thus began a press release from the Department of Agriculture on January 7, 2016.

The most dramatic suggestion from these new guidelines is a 10% limit on the quantity of added sugar that one should consume. They could have just said "avoid drinking too many sweetened beverages," but the soda industry and others have a say-so in how they present their guidelines. They also suggested less "animal protein" for men and teenage boys. They could have said "eat less meat" but the cattle industry and others have a lot of influence. So much politics!

"Shift to healthier food and beverage choices" is one of their not particularly controversial suggestions. They did recommend conventional things like eating vegetables, fruit, whole grains. Also, "By removing dietary cholesterol as a 'nutrient of concern for overconsumption,' the guideline authors bowed to research suggesting that foods rich in the fatty substance contribute only marginally to levels of cholesterol circulating in the bloodstream." (Source: "New Dietary Guidelines," Baltimore Sun.)  

These federal guidelines are important because they become legal requirements for federally subsidized school lunch programs and other government-sponsored programs. I'm not qualified to analyze the guidelines professionally, but I have gathered some material about them from various sources --

Marion Nestle, nutrition expert, has a focus on real foods not "nutrients," which she feels doesn't help people develop good eating patterns. She suggests that the guidelines would be simpler and easier to follow if they just said to eat less processed and junk food. From her blog:

"These Dietary Guidelines, like all previous versions, recommend foods when they suggest 'eat more.' But they switch to nutrients whenever they suggest 'eat less.'

• "In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines, saturated fat is a euphemism for meat.
• "Added sugars is a euphemism for sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages.
• "Sodium is a euphemism for processed foods and junk foods."  -- Source: "The 2015 Dietary Guidelines, at long last" by Marion Nestle. 

Michael Pollan agrees about "nutrients" vs. "foods."  In an interview anticipating the release of the guidelines, he says this:

"Don't get lost in the details. It’s very important to keep an eye on the big picture. Eating real food is the most important thing you can do if you’re concerned about your health. The precise amount of various nutrients really is not going to make a difference. Those very specific recommendations are probably most useful to institutions that need to conform their feeding programs to federal standards — like the school lunch program.

"[The recommendations] are also important to the industry, which loves nothing better than to launch another conversation around nutrients because that leads to opportunities for new health claims. For example, if this time around "added sugar" becomes a food category, which it hasn’t been in the past, it’ll be an opportunity for foodmakers to boast about how little added sugar they have in their products. But that won’t turn unhealthy food into healthy food.

"In general, any nutrient-based advice becomes another distraction from the really important project of focusing on food." -- Source: "Michael Pollan on how America got so screwed up about food" by Julia Belluz at Vox.

About the "protein" recommendation, here's some history from a Baltimore Sun Editorial:

"The dietary guidelines released yesterday by the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services mark the ninth time in a row that the meat industry has successfully suppressed scientific findings recommending reduced meat consumption ... .

"Reduced meat consumption was first recommended in 1977 by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs in the 'Dietary Goals for the United States,' a precursor to the Dietary Guidelines. 

"But the meat industry forced the committee to destroy all copies of the report and to remove the offending recommendation from a new edition. 

"That wanton government sell-out to the meat industry has replayed itself with every new edition of the guidelines since then." -- Source: "Our adulterated dietary guidelines"

And from the Los Angeles Times:

"One thing lawmakers did was fund a peer-reviewed study by the National Academy of Medicine of the science behind the dietary guidelines. The added research can only improve the next recommendations, but it's likely to leave unanswered what may be the most important question about the guidelines: Why don't more people follow them?" -- Source: "Feds serve up more dietary guidelines for Americans to ignore," Editorial in the Los Angeles Times.  

Milan Food Expo

"A vital need: being able to guarantee healthy, safe and sufficient food for everyone, while respecting the Planet and its equilibrium"

"Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life" is the central theme the Milan Food Expo, which starts this week, continuing through October. International agencies and 140 countries are participating: in particular, they are presenting their technology for advancing this theme. This is a part of the Milano World's Fair, which opened a few weeks ago -- including the usual complaints about who participates and what they have to gain, reported the New York Times.

Marion Nestle, the expert on food politics and various nutrition topics, is writing about her visit to the Expo this week. She writes:

"The U.S. has a gorgeous pavilion framed by an undulating wall of vertical vegetables." 

According to the website of the US Pavilion:

"Expo Milano 2015 will enable the USA Pavilion to showcase the United States as an innovator not only in the food sector, but also in many aspects of culture, science and business. Feeding ourselves engages a massive infrastructure, advanced technologies, and dynamic systems that touch on just about every aspect of the world we live in. Each step from farm to table reflects a set of values and connections that impact our identities and shape our future."

Among the open questions are the sponsorship of big food organizations. According to the NYT article:

"After Expo officials announced in late February that McDonald’s would be an official sponsor, alongside partners like Coca-Cola, exhibitors like Slow Food, an international movement that advocates local and quality foods, protested. 

“'The presence of McDonald’s means that the planet can continue to gorge itself on fast food or junk food — call it whatever you like — without concern for our own well-being,' the Slow Food association said in a statement. Including such multinationals at the fair gave the message that 'feeding the planet or fattening it, caring for it or depleting its resources, seems to be the same thing,' Slow Food said in the statement."

Marion Nestle's post today is about the Slow Food Pavilion. She writes about their exhibit of raised beds for growing vegetables, and about a large sculpture in their exhibit:

"I particularly liked the hefty guy made out of corn."

The Slow Food Pavilion theme is "Save Biodiversity, Save the Planet."

I find this all very intriguing -- so many countries and organizations giving lip service to so many good ideas. But will anything about the food problems of the planet really change? I wonder! You can see so many vested interests in not changing!

In Real Life

Some important government pronouncement on food just told us to eat less. Marion Nestle approves -- see 2010 Dietary Guidelines Finally Get Tough on Obesity and Getting Beyond Jargon: A Close Look at the New Dietary Guidelines.

There are lots of open questions. Most people with a weight problem already know that they eat too much. The government didn't need to do research on their behalf. They also know that the diet industry only helps around 10% of them, and that most weight loss is temporary. And that doctors don't have any really effective strategies. Nor does the government.

Then there's another little detail, as stated in the L.A.Times: "The fast-food industry didn't get the memo" --
'Eat less,' U.S. says as chains super-size their fast food

The article offers a ton of details on how fast food chains aren't on the same page as the government. If they were, fast-food representatives told the reporter, they'd be out of business. So here comes another litany of menu choices with thousands of calories and oodles of all the things the government says not to eat, including (though named only by Marion Nestle) the SOFAS -- SOlid Fats and Added Sugars. People want strong tastes: that means salt and sugar. People want good value: that means huge portions. Meat. Cheese. Gallons of coke. Fries.

Well, tomorrow is Groundhog Day and again I'm thinking of that movie about being trapped in the same repeating nightmare over and over. Which reminds me that we're having a blizzard so there's not a chance that the Groundhog will see his shadow; probably no groundhog in most of the country will even be able to get out of his hole. But that's irrelevant to fast food.

Food Politics

I often read about the ongoing political debates about food guidelines, food regulation, school-cafeteria food, and issues of food additives. I don't comment about these subjects much because others are more expert in evaluating what is going on. Today I read two articles of interest in this broad area.

First, the Fairfax County Public Schools' nutrition program was named best in the country by the nonprofit School Nutrition Association. (Washington Post article here.) Miriam and Alice only buy lunch at their Fairfax school occasionally because Evelyn thinks the food is not so healthy and not very good quality. Is this really the best there is?

Second, Marion Nestle's blog Food Politics recently had a summary of some testimony before the Federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, currently performing its 5-year review and revision of food recommendations. I was especially struck by the summary of special interests, as expressed by their lobbying groups. Here is what she said:

• National Pork Producers say: “Urging Americans to shift to a more plant-based diet and consume only moderate amounts of lean meat implies they should decrease consumption of this vital, complete protein.”
• Egg Producers say: “The average American could increase egg consumption and still be within the egg-a-day limit.”
• The Sugar Association says that advice to reduce sugar is “impractical, unrealistic and not grounded in the body of evidence.”
• The Salt Institute testifies: “Encouraging consumption of low-salt foods will encourage Americans to eat excessively to make up for the lack of taste….The guidelines have become far more a reflection of ideology than sound science.”

How can anything be done when special interests dominate like this? Maybe truly salt-free foods would be unpalatable -- but many fast food meals that can easily be eaten by an adult or child contain more salt than an individual's entire recommended daily intake. Maybe meat is healthful, but surely you can get too much of a good thing -- and people do. I wonder what the corn syrup folks are saying! Nestle's blog has much more about these issues.

Maybe I don't write about nutritional politics and food safety much because it is too depressing.

Top Food Issues

Marion Nestle's top food issues for the year are very interesting. See: Hot food issues ready to boil over this year for the full list. I'm most interested in her predictions and questions about

• Hunger: "Will Congress do anything this year to strengthen the safety net for the poor? It needs to."
• Food safety regulation: again, Congress is waiting to act, but may put in stronger regulations.
• Food advertising and labels: will there be better front of package labels? Regulation of ads aimed at kids?
• Dietary guidelines: a new version of the government list will be published this year.

Favorite Bloggers

It's the season for lists. So here's my list of some of my favorite food blogs.

Individual Blogs

• Months of Edible Celebrations: Louise, the blogger here, finds amazing little corners of American history to describe at a perfect level of detail with lots of pictures and links. Her current post, for example, describes household gifts from a 70- or 80-year-old Westinghouse Christmas advertising brochure. A wizened Santa holds up photos of early-20th-century toasters, percolators, chafing dishes, and other old-fashioned appliances -- very amusing. Her blog posts also describe early cookbook authors, inventors of still-staple foods such as cotton candy, and many other historic oddities.
• The Perfect Pantry: Rhode Islander Lydia Walshin manages to feature a new pantry staple several times a week. Spices, condiments, grocery-store basics, and home-made items all appear, with historic and general background as well as specific recipes for their use. One of my favorites among the home-made pantry/freezer items is her recipe for slow-cooked tomatoes -- I have one baggie of them hoarded in my freezer from last tomato season. A recent discovery she recommended: Sriracha sauce, of which I am now consuming my second bottle.
• Gherkins and Tomatoes: Cynthia Bertelsen offers serious historic essays and accounts of her experiences in far-off places. She includes lots of interesting text, intriguing recipes, and wonderfully chosen illustrations. I thank her for the inspiration to make a list of favorite bloggers to celebrate the coming New Year -- and I'm starting to read some new bloggers thanks to her list (this list includes only my ongoing faves).
• Cooked Books: Blogger Rebecca Federman explores "the delicious culinary collections of the New York Public Library." She posts images of historic menus, old cookbooks, or culinary-themed prints, and writes about old books and other food themes. I wish I could get to the NY Public Library to see a lot of the items she posts about.
• Obama Foodorama watches food events at the White House and describes food-related political and social actions by the President and First Lady and their chefs, gardeners, and associates.

Blogs Sponsored by Online Newspapers and Journals

• The Atlantic Food Channel: This is a cross between blogs and magazine writing. Many writers post new food stories, recipes, human-interest sketches, chefs' portraits, farming news, and food politics all the time in this offshoot of the Atlantic magazine. Marion Nestle writes about food and politics. When Gourmet folded, they picked up more food politics from Barry Eastabrook. And Ann Arbor's local food celebrity, Ari Weinzweig writes a column -- often promoting the products of his business here, Zingerman's Deli.
• L.A. Times Daily Dish -- combines Los Angeles restaurant news & trends with more generally interesting material on the world of food.
• Guardian Food and Drink -- a totally English approach to food and dining.
• Houston Press Eating Our Words -- lots of Texas-specific stories, but also some general ones. Recent example: "What the oughts brought" -- an interesting list of trends from this decade.
• New York Times Diners' Journal -- I liked it better when it included many posts by the previous restaurant reviewer -- he brought up interesting topics of restaurant etiquette, tipping, and the like. But there are still good things, such as a current Q & A on Latkes by Joan Nathan.
  

I hope to read more lists of blogger favorites -- I'd love to become a faithful reader of still more blogs.