Who are these people out there who are keenly aware of the nutritional value of almonds yet don't know that there's no milk in them? Seems like a very specific group of people to need to cater product names to.

Oh and these people apparently can't be bothered to read the label.

Maybe we need to forego all product names and simply have labels of ingredients and nutritional value on the front.

When I buy Apple Wood Bacon why shouldn't I expect there to be some apple and wood along with that bacon.

lucek wrote:
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.

Yes, exactly.

lucek wrote:
Now what are you on about almond extract?

What I am about is that the manufacturer lists the ingredient as almonds. I maintain that it is not almonds, therefore call it what you like, almond derivative, hint of almond, specter of almond, almond extract, etc. You can call it anything you like, but NOT almonds.

lucek wrote:
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.

Again, agreed. In this case, they've managed to remove nearly all of the nutritive value. You're making my case verrrrry easy to make.

purplerat wrote:

Oh and these people apparently can't be bothered to read the label.

I know it Purplerat and that's the most regrettable part of this. I am fiercely staunch in analyzing the nutrition facts these days. Somebody's got to have the back of those less nutritionally conscious. I am genuinely concerned for those who are not nutritionally aware, that's all.

Can you see how I might be concerned?

chango369 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Oh and these people apparently can't be bothered to read the label.

I know it Purplerat and that's the most regrettable part of this. I am fiercely staunch in analyzing the nutrition facts these days. Somebody's got to have the back of those less nutritionally conscious. I am genuinely concerned for those who are not nutritionally aware, that's all.

Can you see how I might be concerned?

Well you cut out the rest of my comment above that comment. Who are these people who are so health conscious that they are buying almond milk for the health benefits of almonds yet can't be bothered to figure out what almond milk actually is?

Are you equally as worried that they are buying apple wood bacon assuming it has nutritional benefits of apples?

purplerat wrote:

When I buy Apple Wood Bacon why shouldn't I expect there to be some apple and wood along with that bacon.

Only if they listed apples and wood as ingredients, yes.

ETA : Or indeed, if they listed apple tree wood as an ingredient, I should expect that.

chango369 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

When I buy Apple Wood Bacon why shouldn't I expect there to be some apple and wood along with that bacon.

Only if they listed apples and wood as ingredients, yes.

Again, who are these people who bother to read the ingredients but not the nutritional values? You'd have a point if products were sold with only a vague list of ingredients and nothing else but the nutritional values are right there next to the ingredients, usually even more prominently displayed.

purplerat wrote:

chango369 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

When I buy Apple Wood Bacon why shouldn't I expect there to be some apple and wood along with that bacon.

Only if they listed apples and wood as ingredients, yes.

Again, who are these people who bother to read the ingredients but not the nutritional values? You'd have a point if products were sold with only a vague list of ingredients and nothing else but the nutritional values are right there next to the ingredients, usually even more prominently displayed.

I don't know who they are and I don't understand the relevancy of the question. I do have a point. The listing of almonds as an ingredient is not vague, but rather specific. The 'necessary' processing to arrive at a 'milk substitute' subtracts out not only the nutritive value, but renders the accuracy of almonds appearing on the ingredient list null and void. I think the class action lawsuit is proper and warranted.

The relevancy of the question is quintessential to the issue. If it's some very small group of unreasonable people who have a problem with this then the lawsuit is without merit. If the people who are being "deceived" are done so because of their own unreasonable foolishness then they don't have a case.

I think what you have here is a very narrow group of people who erroneously assumed that a product was something that it wasn't nor that it was marketed as. The average person who's not overly concerned with food nutritional value wouldn't be deceived by this nor would they average person who is concerned with food nutrition. It's almost like the only people who would be deceived by this are those who are actively trying to get fooled.

chango369 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

When I buy Apple Wood Bacon why shouldn't I expect there to be some apple and wood along with that bacon.

Only if they listed apples and wood as ingredients, yes.

ETA : Or indeed, if they listed apple tree wood as an ingredient, I should expect that.

So if I buy a Raspberry Wheat Ale, brewed with real raspberries, I should expect that beer to have the the nutritional value of raspberries?

To extend that even further, should labels not include any ingredients which when processed do not have the same nutritional value as if they were eaten whole or raw?

I hope they win their suit. Next up - lack of coke in coke, totally fucked up my blast furnace.

And me nose.

It has been a while, but I have used almond milk in my cereal. I'm mildly lactose intolerant, so while I can eat small amounts of cheese and yogurt, I can't handle just milk. Got tired of cereal, so we no long get any kind of faux milk.

I no more expected to find actual bits of almonds in almond milk any more than I expected to find bits of soy beans in soy milk or grains of rice in rice milk.

Looking at the nutrition labels above, the first three almond breeze, the fourth skim milk, and the last 2% it looks to me like the almond milk is at least as nutritious as skim milk or 2%, if not more. So, for a milk substitute it does the job nicely. Especially for those wanting to cut calories.

As for carrageenan? It's made from seaweed and has been used for hundreds of years. It's not some new chemical and it has not been shown to have adverse effects.

The law suit is frivolous. These companies making almond milk use almonds. That they don't use as much as the plaintiffs would like is of no consequence. If they want more almonds in their almond milk then they are free to make their own at home.

The companies making the almond milk use just enough to give an almond flavor, and they don't use artificial almond flavoring, so I can't see what all the fuss is about.

Reminds me of the Food Babe's campaign against Starbucks for there not being any pumpkin in their pumpkin spice latte. What's next? Maybe they should sue post foods because there aren't any grapes or nuts in grape-nuts cereal.

soy milk ingredients.jpg[/attachment]

Sciwoman wrote:It has been a while, but I have used almond milk in my cereal. I'm mildly lactose intolerant, so while I can eat small amounts of cheese and yogurt, I can't handle just milk. Got tired of cereal, so we no long get any kind of faux milk.

I no more expected to find actual bits of almonds in almond milk any more than I expected to find bits of soy beans in soy milk or grains of rice in rice milk.

Sure, but contrast the vast difference between almond milk and soy milk, which I'd hope to be a fair comparison. Somehow, during the fractionating process, more of the nutrients made it through.

Behold, the protein, potassium, magnesium, phosphorus made it through the process in the case of soy, not so for almond milk. Pardon the formatting. If it appears too small use zoom. And Oldskeptic, there's a lot more to consider nutritionally that the components your post is focusing on. But I think I've made my point with respect to the protein alone.

The problem I see is almond milk has a fraction of the nutritional benefits of almonds because it barely contains almonds, unlike soy milk, which contains soy. You don't strain it all out. As a result, with soy milk you get protein comparable to what you find in dairy.

Referring to a product as almond milk gives the impression it contains the protein of almonds, which have a great protein yield. That's exactly what a dairy alternative should contain. Thing is, while almonds are a great source of protein, none of that protein translates to almond milk.

The stuff has been advertised as a dairy alternative yet it simply doesn't fulfill the nutritional requirements of a milk. Call it almond milk if you like but the idea it's a dairy alternative needs to be done away with. People whose babies struggle with dairy give them almond milk as an alternative. Those kids can get sick as a result of insufficient protein.

purplerat wrote:Who are these people out there who are keenly aware of the nutritional value of almonds yet don't know that there's no milk in them? Seems like a very specific group of people to need to cater product names to.

We may be dealing with the same demographic that was shocked to learn that a pumpkin spice latte contained no actual pumpkin.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch by Oldskeptic.

purplerat wrote:
So if I buy a Raspberry Wheat Ale, brewed with real raspberries, I should expect that beer to have the the nutritional value of raspberries?

To extend that even further, should labels not include any ingredients which when processed do not have the same nutritional value as if they were eaten whole or raw?

C''mon now! The first part of your post is drifting towards absurdity. Is it reasonable to think that any consumer is purchasing their ale based on nutritional needs?

Isn't is reasonable to state that when a consumer is purchasing a milk substitute as a replacement for dairy milk, be it almond milk, cashew milk or soy milk, that the choice is being made largely with nutrition in mind?

Now the second part of your post is a more fair question. Omitting ingredients altogether would be a deal breaker, I would hope so, because not including them on the list at all would be troublesome indeed.

Your question does give me a chance to nuance my position a bit though. Whitewave's Silk Almond milk formulation is sufficiently fortified with vitamins and minerals (albeit necessarily and arguably so due to their natural content having been plucked out during processing) to the extent that if the class action were to go against them, that it'd be taken into consideration. Blue Diamond needs a comeuppance. Both companies are producing this product irresponsibly merely due to the lack of protein alone IMHO.

Allow me to restate my main concern. Imagine a father or mother, shopping at the grocery store. They have all the best intentions of providing the highest quality nutrition for their children. They wheel past the beverage section where milk is sold, and notice for the very first time that almond milk is on offer. "Why look at that, a milk substitute based on almonds!"

They are somewhat nutritionally conscious, but fail to analyze the nutrition facts rigorously. They make even read the ingredient list, but what they there see doesn't impact their ultimate decision.

They purchase the product as a direct replacement for dairy milk, perhaps basing the decision on its lower caloric content and/or lower fat content, etc. In other words, they make a decision based on a partial analysis.

Well guess what, they just created a protein deficit for their child. Not only that, but they've also created a phosphorus deficit. So what, one might ask. Do I need explain the problem with their having reduced the protein intake of their growing child? With phosphorus, is that such a big deal?

Well, phosphorus is a very key nutrient, being a component of a compound that has been described as the coin of the realm with respect to cellular biology:

adenosine triphosphate

After all, it's very key to the biological processes of both glycolysis and the citric acid cycle and those are just for starters.

These are not trivial things people.

I could go on, but isn't that enough?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Another thing, unrelated to your post: What exactly is happening with the sum total of the almond matter excised out from the almond milk production?

I would hope that at least they're doing something useful with it, at a minimum, making marzipan! Perhaps they're using it to fortify other products or selling it to a dietary supplement manufacturer. I'm not so cynical to think that that they're throwing it away, at least at this point in time.

Blip, enjoy your coffee! A very good use of almond milk, even in its current composition. Love your kitteh! Have for years.

Raspberry wheat ale (I'm really into a peach wheat ale this summer) isn't advertised as a nutritional substitute. Almond milk is advertised as a dairy substitute, which is dangerous potentially.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Raspberry wheat ale (I'm really into a peach wheat ale this summer) isn't advertised as a nutritional substitute. Almond milk is advertised as a dairy substitute, which is dangerous potentially.

Thank you! I was starting to feel alone in this.