Ok, this is admittedly not the most dire of problems, but this is an FYI to those who may be getting scammed currently.

I was duped by this crap. The fact that almond milk is virtually devoid of nutrition should've been the tip off.

When I was buying and drinking it, I had this crazy idea that consuming dairy products had something to do the 'wet dog' smell' that I've heard some lactose intolerant people levy as a charge against those who consume dairy.

Anyway, here's the lead in to the story. I have to say: thank you UK food labeling laws!

Alternet''s Lindsay Abrams wrote:Remember when we suggested (okay, aggregated an article that suggested) that almond milk is “kind of a scam“?

Well, a class action lawsuit filed against the makers of Almond Breeze for false advertising contends that the popular milk alternative is even more of a rip-off than we thought — because it barely contains any almonds.

Just two percent almonds, to be exact. The rest is just carton filler. (Hey, there’s no breeze in there either!) Blue Diamond doesn’t make that information publicly available in the U.S., but the plaintiffs found the information they were looking for on the company’s U.K. website.

Almond Milk Is an Even Bigger Scam Than We Thought

Just for shits and grins I ran the following rough calculations, based on a few Internet sources that I can't even be bothered to ref. It's copy/pasta, as I posted it on a couple of web sites, but it's all mine.

LOL, ~ 10 to 12 almonds per half a gallon!

The density of ground almonds yields 26.6 oz per half gallon

Multiplying 26.6 by 2% yields .53 oz per half gallon

One ounce of almonds is 20 to 24 nuts

Going with the higher figure, .5 oz of almonds is 12 nuts

Therefore, a cup of almond milk containing 2% almond content is approx. 1.5 almonds

So a half gallon of this garbage, retailing at nearly $4 USD a half gallon, is mostly water, 10 to 12 almonds and a bit of calcium. What a blatant rip off!

Yep. The local Morrisons store sells something called Alpen Almond milk - 2% almonds...

You guys realise that actual milk is around 90% water, yes?

If it's in the US this will most likely fail.

You can pretty much call something whatever, claim whatever, and have to prove zero about whatever, in their agri-food market.

It is wholly at the risk of the consumer. Caveat Emptor.

(I would put the disclaimer that allergy stuff probably does need to be included. Well, at least for now.)

Almond milk is just almonds blended with water, then strained so of course it doesn't actually contain almonds to any significant degree. After making a batch you're left with a huge lump of almond pulp that never made it into the "milk".

It's tasty and I like cooking with it so I whip up a batch of it now and then. Throw in a vanilla bean, a couple dates, some cinnamon if I'm feeling adventurous. It's not almonds though! The almonds are in the pulp, which I try to find uses for.

chango369 wrote:

Just for shits and grins I ran the following rough calculations, based on a few Internet sources that I can't even be bothered to ref. It's copy/pasta, as I posted it on a couple of web sites, but it's all mine.

LOL, ~ 10 to 12 almonds per half a gallon!

The density of ground almonds yields 26.6 oz per half gallon

Multiplying 26.6 by 2% yields .53 oz per half gallon

One ounce of almonds is 20 to 24 nuts

Going with the higher figure, .5 oz of almonds is 12 nuts

Therefore, a cup of almond milk containing 2% almond content is approx. 1.5 almonds

So a half gallon of this garbage, retailing at nearly $4 USD a half gallon, is mostly water, 10 to 12 almonds and a bit of calcium. What a blatant rip off!

I've never drank it but that's about what I would have expected it to made up of. I've eaten enough almonds to know there isn't much moisture in there and what there is is mostly water anyways. What else would somebody buying this expect? Will they next be complaining because there is 0% milk in Almond Milk?

Class action lawsuit against Skippy because their peanut butter doesn't contain any butter

if they used anything else but almonds in the process of making the stuff, they might have a point.
but if it's just a case of getting watered flavouerd with almonds, and 2% is enough to get that flavour in, where is the problem?

How much barley is left in beer?

Agi Hammerthief wrote:if they used anything else but almonds in the process of making the stuff, they might have a point.
but if it's just a case of getting watered flavouerd with almonds, and 2% is enough to get that flavour in, where is the problem?

How much barley is left in beer?

Ideally none. It's the starch that you want for beer. The plant itself would make the final product tasted like shit.

Although a better comparison in beer would be the hops. As long as you get the same results there is no benefit to putting more in.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:if they used anything else but almonds in the process of making the stuff, they might have a point.
but if it's just a case of getting watered flavouerd with almonds, and 2% is enough to get that flavour in, where is the problem?

How much barley is left in beer?

Regular or homeopathic?

purplerat wrote:

chango369 wrote:

Just for shits and grins I ran the following rough calculations, based on a few Internet sources that I can't even be bothered to ref. It's copy/pasta, as I posted it on a couple of web sites, but it's all mine.

LOL, ~ 10 to 12 almonds per half a gallon!

The density of ground almonds yields 26.6 oz per half gallon

Multiplying 26.6 by 2% yields .53 oz per half gallon

One ounce of almonds is 20 to 24 nuts

Going with the higher figure, .5 oz of almonds is 12 nuts

Therefore, a cup of almond milk containing 2% almond content is approx. 1.5 almonds

So a half gallon of this garbage, retailing at nearly $4 USD a half gallon, is mostly water, 10 to 12 almonds and a bit of calcium. What a blatant rip off!

I've never drank it but that's about what I would have expected it to made up of. I've eaten enough almonds to know there isn't much moisture in there and what there is is mostly water anyways. What else would somebody buying this expect? Will they next be complaining because there is 0% milk in Almond Milk?

The reason I think it's a rip off has to do with the fact that Blue DIamond's Almond Breeze is largely devoid of any natural nutritional content that almonds provide.

Whitewave's SIlk "True Almond" brand does better by adding back in artificial Vitamins A, B2, D and B12.

Because there's a straining process, almond milk does not contain almonds, it contains almond extract, or almond flavoring. It's false advertising, period.

Almond milk turns out to largely water, with almond extract, and one or artificial nutrients depending on the brand.


From the UK Blue Diamond web site: (pardon the formatting)

Nutritional Info

Typical Values Per 100ml
Energy KJ 60
Energy Kcal 14
Protein 0.5g
Carbohydrate 0.4g
(of which are sugars) 0.1g
(of which lactose) 0.0g
Fat 1.2g
(of which are saturates) <0.1g
(of which cholesterol) 0.0mg
Fibre 0.3g
Sodium 0.05g
(equivalent as salt) 0.13g
Calcium 120mg*
*15% of the recommended daily allowance

Whereas 3.5 oz of almonds has: Source USDA database

Thiamine (B1) (18%) 0.211 mg
Riboflavin (B2) (85%) 1.014 mg
Niacin (B3) (23%) 3.385 mg
Pantothenic acid (B5)
(9%) 0.469 mg
Vitamin B6 (11%) 0.143 mg
Folate (B9) (13%) 50 μg
Choline (11%) 52.1 mg
Vitamin E (175%) 26.2 mg
Vitamin K (0%) 0.0 μg
Trace metals
Calcium (26%) 264 mg
Iron (29%) 3.72 mg
Magnesium (75%) 268 mg
Manganese (109%) 2.285 mg
Phosphorus (69%) 484 mg
Potassium (15%) 705 mg
Sodium (0%) 1 mg
Zinc (32%) 3.08 mg

And before you all jump on it, I know, I know apples and oranges. But as you see, almonds in their natural state are fairly comprehensive nutritionally speaking. Almond milk is largely filler. Just like the difference between whole wheat bread and Wonder Bread.

I've bought some, found it to be a poor substitute for real milk or any other milk substitute I've tried, because not surprisingly, it's too damn watery.

Having spoken to a few people that I know who switched to almond milk because of the lower calorie content, I was able to ascertain, that they had some idea that it'd be really healthy, since it's made from almonds after all.

They also had some expectation that since it's being offered as a milk substitute, that there would be at least some attempt made to make the nutritional profile somewhat analogous to milk. The switch from milk to almond milk creates many nutritional deficits, that's all, that's why I'm pissed.

As long as they pop a decent multi vitamin, it'd be ok I suppose.

What about kids though?

Hey, go ahead and spend the $3-5 USD for a half gallon of this uber-processed product and treat your kid to a bowl of Count Chocula. What a breakfast!

Do they advertise it as being nutritional or having health benefits aside from being low calorie?

Right now I'm drinking a pomegranate sparkling water yet I don't expect it to have any of the nutritional value a pomegranate would. I suppose the makers of this sparkling water could infuse it with vitamins but they don't. I don't feel mislead.

chango369 wrote:
What about kids though?

If parents can't be bothered to look at the label to know whether something has nutritional value or not then the kids kind of fucked either way.

People believe it's a product derived from almonds like fruit juice is juice from fruit.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:People believe it's a product derived from almonds like fruit juice is juice from fruit.

Really? I wouldn't think almonds naturally have milk the way fruit has juice. But maybe that's just me. Next time I'm eating almonds I'll give them a squeeze and see how much milk I get.

purplerat wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:People believe it's a product derived from almonds like fruit juice is juice from fruit.

Really? I wouldn't think almonds naturally have milk the way fruit has juice. But maybe that's just me. Next time I'm eating almonds I'll give them a squeeze and see how much milk I get.

The trouble is you have coconut milk which is just that. My wife drinks the organic version which is readily available.

Almond milk is a misnomer. Almonds dont have milk so I wonder why it is allowed to be called almond milk?

Because the word "milk" doesn't just apply to that substance supplied freely to humans in a mutualistic relationship with other mammals.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:People believe it's a product derived from almonds like fruit juice is juice from fruit.

Really? I wouldn't think almonds naturally have milk the way fruit has juice. But maybe that's just me. Next time I'm eating almonds I'll give them a squeeze and see how much milk I get.

The trouble is you have coconut milk which is just that. My wife drinks the organic version which is readily available.

Almond milk is a misnomer. Almonds dont have milk so I wonder why it is allowed to be called almond milk?

Rocks don't have milk so why do we call it milk of magnesia. Oh right it shares some properties with milk.

chango369 wrote:Ok, this is admittedly not the most dire of problems, but this is an FYI to those who may be getting scammed currently.

I was duped by this crap. The fact that almond milk is virtually devoid of nutrition should've been the tip off.

When I was buying and drinking it, I had this crazy idea that consuming dairy products had something to do the 'wet dog' smell' that I've heard some lactose intolerant people levy as a charge against those who consume dairy.

Anyway, here's the lead in to the story. I have to say: thank you UK food labeling laws!

Alternet''s Lindsay Abrams wrote:Remember when we suggested (okay, aggregated an article that suggested) that almond milk is “kind of a scam“?

Well, a class action lawsuit filed against the makers of Almond Breeze for false advertising contends that the popular milk alternative is even more of a rip-off than we thought — because it barely contains any almonds.

Just two percent almonds, to be exact. The rest is just carton filler. (Hey, there’s no breeze in there either!) Blue Diamond doesn’t make that information publicly available in the U.S., but the plaintiffs found the information they were looking for on the company’s U.K. website.

Almond Milk Is an Even Bigger Scam Than We Thought

Just for shits and grins I ran the following rough calculations, based on a few Internet sources that I can't even be bothered to ref. It's copy/pasta, as I posted it on a couple of web sites, but it's all mine.

LOL, ~ 10 to 12 almonds per half a gallon!

The density of ground almonds yields 26.6 oz per half gallon

Multiplying 26.6 by 2% yields .53 oz per half gallon

One ounce of almonds is 20 to 24 nuts

Going with the higher figure, .5 oz of almonds is 12 nuts

Therefore, a cup of almond milk containing 2% almond content is approx. 1.5 almonds

So a half gallon of this garbage, retailing at nearly $4 USD a half gallon, is mostly water, 10 to 12 almonds and a bit of calcium. What a blatant rip off!

Did you remember to adjust for non-soluble components of almonds?

This entire thing is stupid. It wasn't false advertised, it gave the run down of nutrition. So what's the argument. "We think it's expensive and have no concept of supply and demand so it's a scam"?

campermon wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Yep, if you drink milk or eat cheese you are complicit in the deaths of animals.

Of course you're not, because animals would be slaughtered anyway. You make it sound like nobody would eat meat if we weren't milking animals, which is, of course, a pernicious lie and utterly ludicrous.

Even if we only used cows for milk, they would have to be slaughtered in order to maintain the economic viability of any operation.

If you drink milk, you are complicit in animal slaughter.

Repetition is the key to truth!

But this is a derail could we keep talking about nondairy milk substitutes?

lucek wrote:

Did you remember to adjust for non-soluble components of almonds?

You are in effect supporting a point I was struggling to make. They list on the ingredients list ALMONDS. Not almond extract, not almond flavoring, not almond flavoring with other natural flavors or some such BS.

Let's get to the point. Both you and I are capable of deriving a subtext from the ingredient list and accurately speculating that they are straining out the non soluble components; I get that. My 'calculation' was done in a tongue-in-cheek manner, because their ingredient list says "2 %" almonds, which in reality, is virtually meaningless at the end of day and could be interpreted in any number of ways.

Packaged as it is, it's not a stretch to surmise that lots of people are making an unwise food choice in this case, and consequently, they may erroneously conclude that "almond milk is you know, kinda like milk except that it's made from almonds", perhaps even assuming that it's probably roughly as nutritious. I've talked with a number of people that made that very mistake.

But what really pisses me off to no end is that their processing strips out just about every nutrient.

Where's the goddamn potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, THE PROTEIN?

Here's another thing. I went out and bought a small container of this crap tonight along with a bag of raw organic almonds, poured about, oh maybe a cup and a half, doesn't matter really, counted out 12 almonds, threw it into a blender and guess what. It tastes great! Maybe the weeee-est bit gritty, but if one were going to use it with cereal, it'd hardly be noticeable.

Still a rip off for the nutritionally unaware consumer.

ETA: LOLOL I forgot that the USDA database provide reports on more than just unprocessed foods.

It is to fucking laugh.

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/ ... measureby=

chango369 wrote:

lucek wrote:

Did you remember to adjust for non-soluble components of almonds?

You are in effect supporting a point I was struggling to make. They list on the ingredients list ALMONDS. Not almond extract, not almond flavoring, not almond flavoring with other natural flavors or some such BS.

Let's get to the point. Both you and I are capable of deriving a subtext from the ingredient list and accurately speculating that they are straining out the non soluble components; I get that. My 'calculation' was done in a tongue-in-cheek manner, because their ingredient list says "2 %" almonds, which in reality, is virtually meaningless at the end of day and could be interpreted in any number of ways.

Packaged as it is, it's not a stretch to surmise that lots of people are making an unwise food choice in this case, and consequently, they may erroneously conclude that "almond milk is you know, kinda like milk except that it's made from almonds", perhaps even assuming that it's probably roughly as nutritious. I've talked with a number of people that made that very mistake.

But what really pisses me off to no end is that their processing strips out just about every nutrient.

Where's the goddamn potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, THE PROTEIN?

Here's another thing. I went out and bought a small container of this crap tonight along with a bag of raw organic almonds, poured about, oh maybe a cup and a half, doesn't matter really, counted out 12 almonds, threw it into a blender and guess what. It tastes great! Maybe the weeee-est bit gritty, but if one were going to use it with cereal, it'd hardly be noticeable.

Still a rip off for the nutritionally unaware consumer.

ETA: LOLOL I forgot that the USDA database provide reports on more than just unprocessed foods.

It is to fucking laugh.

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/ ... measureby=

Um When I see the term almond milk I think it's a milk subsatute made with almounds that is the color of and has a similar taste to cow milk.

Now what are you on about almond extract? Yes when you separate the meal from the milk you remove nutrition. Nutrients aren't ethereal and not all of them are going to make it from seed to imitation cow juice.