Posted: Jul 29, 2015 9:54 pm
by Oldskeptic
chango369 wrote:
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.

No, it's not. Raspberries are a flavoring in the beer. Almonds are a flavoring in almond breeze. A flavoring with some nutritional value.

Nowhere does blue diamond claim that almond breeze is all almonds or even mostly almonds. From their advertising: "The creamy smooth texture and hint-of-almond taste make this non-dairy beverage a standout at standing in for milk."

So it doesn't have as much phosphorous or protein as milk, it does have the calcium, potassium, magnesium, vitamin A, and vitamin D of milk. Almond breeze has iron, fiber, and vitamin E that milk does not. It has half the calories of skim milk and one third the calories of 2%. Almond breeze has no sugar, no cholesterol, no saturated fats, and 1/4 of the carbohydrates as milk.

Is it reasonable to think that any consumer is purchasing their ale based on nutritional needs? :what:

In some cases people will be looking at total carbs and calories in their purchasing of beer, so yes. Just as people looking a milk and alternatives to milk in that way; The least carbs and calories and sugar and saturated fats. My youngest daughter drinks and uses almond milk in her coffee for those specific reasons. She doesn't like low fat milk, she calls it colored water, and says that almond milk has a nice flavor and texture.

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? :ask:

It is, and I'm sure most of them actually read the labels if nutrition is on their minds. Apparently the two bringing the law suit where too lazy or stupid to do that

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.

There isn't a lack of protein, there just isn't as much as milk.

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.

Then that's their own mistake not the people that conspicuously list their ingredients and nutritional values.

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. :doh:

Then that's their mistake not the people that conspicuously list their ingredients and nutritional values.

Well guess what, they just created a protein deficit for their child.

That is laughable. As if the only place the child will get protein is in the milk they drink.

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? :ask: With phosphorus, is that such a big deal? :ask:

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

And with three cups of milk a day the recommended daily intake of phosphorus is exceeded by 5%. And excess phosphorus depletes calcium in the body. So, if you're letting you kid drink milk three times a day to get enough phosphorus you'd better cut out cheese, nuts, fish, yogurt, pork, beef, soy products, and beans. Because with small servings of cheese one oz, yogurt 100grams, fish three oz, pork three oz, beef three oz, and beans 100grams you've fed the little tykes 137% of the recommended daily intake of phosphorus. This illustrates how easy it is to get the recommended daily intake of phosphorus, not to mention that with diet along those lines you'll also exceed the recommended daily intake of protein.

So, unless the only thing that you feed your kid is milk, there are no worries.

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?

Yes, that is quite enough.