Tag Archives: dairy

The FDA is confused about the definition of ‘milk,’ so we talked to a dictionary expert

As a young kiddo, you probably looked up from the book you were reading to ask some version of the following question:  “Mommy, what does ‘obnoxious’ mean?”

More likely than not, a lazy adult advised you to look it up in the dictionary. That advice, while annoying, was instructive.

Perhaps the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should take a page from the dictionary, too. The agency has expressed some confusion over the word “milk,” and whether plant-based beverages like almond milk should be labeled as such.

“You know, an almond doesn’t lactate, I will confess,” FDA’s commissioner Scott Gottlieb said at a policy summit earlier this month.

The dairy industry has been begging the agency to address this topic of concern for nearly 20 years in the hopes of getting “milk” banished from the labels of non-dairy, climate-friendlier alternatives like soy, almond, coconut, and oat milk.

Big Lactose’s dreams might finally come true. The FDA released an official statement Thursday saying it was reviewing the question of what’s milk, and what’s not.

“All the lexicographers I know groaned and said, ‘Oh boy, here we go,” says Kory Stamper, lexicographer and author of Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries.

“The FDA can decide whatever they want, but in terms of common usage, that use of [plant] milk is not going anywhere,” Stamper tells me. “It’s 600 years old.”

That’s right — almond milk actually dates back to the 1400s, according to Stamper.

Milk generally refers to the “fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of their young,” as Merriam-Webster dictates, as well as milk from an animal “used as food by people.” The next definition, however, says that milk is also “a food product produced from seeds or fruit that resembles and is used similarly to cow’s milk,” as well as “a liquid resembling milk in appearance.”

Earlier this year, France decided to ban vegan foods from borrowing terminology from animal products (that means no more soy milk or vegan bacon). The justification? That consumers might confuse soy milk with dairy milk, for instance. There doesn’t seem to be much real confusion about whether plant-based milks are really milk milk, Stamper tells me.

The FDA seems to be taking a different tack than the French. Echoing the dairy industry, the agency’s statement suggests that when people hear “almond milk,” they might somehow think that it’s nutritionally equivalent to dairy milk. The nutritional comparison is another question in itself.

And the same discussion may soon turn to “meat.” As the debate heats up over what to call cell-cultured meat and meat alternatives, know this: While meat has referred to animal flesh since the 1300s, it was used for the flesh of a fruit or a nut (like the meat of a walnut) just a century later, Stamper tells me.

“It gets tricky when you start dealing with these general vocabulary terms that are really foundational,” Stamper says. “We think they have one clear meaning, but if you look at the history, their meanings are just not that clear. Their use goes back way further than we think.”

Gottlieb, the FDA commissioner, knows he’s up against a challenge. If the FDA decides to take the milk out of almond milk, it could end up embroiled in a legal battle over commercial free speech rights.

“If you open our Standards of Identity, it talks about a lactating animal,” Gottlieb said at the policy summit, “but you open up a dictionary, it talks about milk coming from a lactating animal or a nut.”

The dairy industry’s hope seems to be that if these increasingly popular plant-based milks can no longer be billed as milk, their sales might dip. Whatever ends up on the label, at least one person is likely to keep buying almond milk anyway.

“I’m lactose intolerant, so I can’t drink dairy,” Stamper says. “I mostly drink nut milks.”

And she’ll probably keep calling it almond milk, just like the rest of us: “Trying to change general usage once it’s well established is pretty impossible, so good luck with that.”

Taken from:  

The FDA is confused about the definition of ‘milk,’ so we talked to a dictionary expert

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The FDA is confused about the definition of ‘milk,’ so we talked to a dictionary expert

Every year, more cows are milked by robots.

On Monday, newly minted Governor Phil Murphy signed an executive order to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multi-state carbon trading program that aims to reduce greenhouse gases from the power sector.

New Jersey’s former governor (and bona fide bully) Chris Christie had pulled the state out in 2011, saying the initiative increased the tax burden for utilities and failed to adequately reduce greenhouse gases. Murphy said that Christie’s decision to withdraw had cost the state $279 million in revenue.

The state Department of Environmental Protection and the Board of Public Utilities will begin drawing up a game plan to re-enter the pact.

Nine eastern states already participate in RGGI: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. Now, New Jersey is joining the fray, and Virginia may soon follow.

“With this executive order, New Jersey takes the first step toward restoring our place as a leader in the green economy,” Murphy said. Jersey shore knows what it’s doing!

Link: 

Every year, more cows are milked by robots.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Every year, more cows are milked by robots.

The largest organic dairy farm in America might not be organic.

View original:

The largest organic dairy farm in America might not be organic.

Posted in GE, LAI, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The largest organic dairy farm in America might not be organic.

Cows pass gas ’so they don’t explode,’ dairy industry reminds us

natural gas

Cows pass gas ’so they don’t explode,’ dairy industry reminds us

By on Aug 12, 2016 5:48 pmShare

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

California’s attempt to curb emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is facing vocal opposition from a dairy industry that fears government meddling in the flatulence of its cows.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has set a goal of slashing methane emissions by 40 percent by 2030, from 2013 levels, and has targeted the belching and farting — known as “enteric fermentation” — of California’s 5.5 million beef and dairy cows, as well as the manure they create.

A strategy document produced by the regulator states that improved manure management practices, new diets for cattle and “gut microbial interventions” could help cut the amount of methane released into the atmosphere. State legislators are currently considering a bill to enforce these suggestions.

Methane, primarily emitted from agriculture and the fossil fuel industry, doesn’t linger in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide. But it is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas over a 100-year period.

California has moved to limit methane after the state’s glowing reputation for climate action received a nasty blow by a natural gas leak this year in the mountains above Los Angeles that took 112 days to plug and spewed 97,100 metric tonnes of methane into the atmosphere.

But the state’s dairy industry has criticized the crackdown on methane leaking from cattle, launching a social media and email campaign that claims the ARB is overstepping its remit and raises the specter of exploding cows.

“The focus here is to highlight ARB’s efforts at over-regulating the dairy industry,” said Anja Raudabaugh, chief executive of Western United Dairymen. “By nature’s design, [cows] pass lots of gas. Quite frankly, we want them to expel gas so they don’t explode.”

The Milk Producers Council has also lambasted the prospect of new regulation, with the lobby group’s general manager Rob Vandenheuvel stating that the methane rules plan “threatens the future of the California dairy industry.”

“This is about fighting against the ridiculously stupid ‘go-it-alone’ strategy for implementing business killing regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gases,” Vandenheuvel said.

“When the U.S. talks about going this direction, while countries like China refuse, I call that crazy. When a single state like California does it on its own, I call that absolutely insane.”

In May, the Obama administration unveiled new rules to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas industry by up to 45 percent by 2025, from 2012 levels. The rules are part of a number of executive actions taken by the president this year — including on emissions from aircraft and refrigerants — in the face of escalating global temperatures.

The world has just experienced 14 consecutive months of record heat, with scientists expressing alarm at the pace of temperature increase and resulting impact upon glaciers and sea levels.

Neither California nor the federal government, however, has yet adopted an idea from Argentina’s government that large backpacks be strapped onto cows to trap methane and turn it into green energy.

ShareElection Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

View original article – 

Cows pass gas ’so they don’t explode,’ dairy industry reminds us

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cows pass gas ’so they don’t explode,’ dairy industry reminds us

Is It Better to Buy Local or Organic?

More: 

Is It Better to Buy Local or Organic?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is It Better to Buy Local or Organic?

Boy, Hipsters Sure Are Defensive About Their Almond Milk

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When I penned my little opus about almond milk last week, I really didn’t intend to insult anyone’s intelligence, provocative headline aside. What I really wanted to do was encourage people to think about what they’re buying when they buy this hot-selling product. My editors chose the title and I went along, because they know more than me about what makes people click. And people clicked! I’m pretty sure that “Lay Off the Almond Milk, You Ignorant Hipsters” is my most-read piece ever at Mother Jones.

It takes a gallon of water to grow a single almond. How does an almond’s water footprint stack up to other foods’?

Reactions mostly hovered in a range between mild annoyance and blind rage. One guy dropped by the Facebook page of the farm I helped found, Maverick Farms, to inform me that he planned to keep drinking almond milk—and spilling it, even. To drive his point home, he even looked up the farm’s phone number and repeated his pledge on the answering machine. Thanks for the update!

The oddest response came from Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan, who took the opportunity to school me in the art of the “food troll”:

This fool is talking about how almond milk is not as good as just eating almonds. False comparison. I eat tons of almonds. Love em. And I drink almond milk too. Love it. I can have both. You love regular almonds so much? Do you eat more almonds than me? Not a chance. I eat more almonds than you. And still drink almond milk. Case closed on that particular argument I guess.

Still not convinced? Nolan adds the coup de grace: “If I puked up almond milk it probably wouldn’t even taste that bad relative to other kinds of puke.”

Right. Meanwhile, several people thundered that since I dare question the value of almond milk, I must be a tool for Big Dairy. “Were you paid off by the Dairy Farmers of America to write that piece?” one wag wondered on Twitter, adding, helpfully ” PS I’m no hipster and I love my Almond Milk!”

Actually, my piece did not purport to judge almond milk against the standards of dairy milk and find it wanting. “I get why people are switching away from dairy milk, I wrote, since “industrial-scale dairy production is a pretty nasty business.” I did cop to drinking a bit of kefir, a fermented milk product. But my intention wasn’t to promote Big Dairy, but just to point out that almond milk is nutritionally pretty vapid compared to other products. An eight-ounce serving of Helios brand organic kefir contains 16 grams of protein, vs. 1 gram per serving in most almond milk brands. That’s a remarkable difference. But of course, people consume things for all sorts of good reasons, not just protein content.

Now, I didn’t get into much of an ecological analysis in my piece, but there is an interesting one to make here. Back in May, my colleagues Julia Lurie and Alex Park looked at the literature and found that it takes 23 gallons of water to produce a glass of almond milk and 35 gallons to produce a serving of yogurt. Let’s assume that it takes a similar amount of water to make Helios kefir, which is essentially fermented skim milk. On the surface, the almond milk looks a lot easier on the water supply. But if you look at it on a protein basis, almond milk looks like a disaster: it takes 23 gallons of water to produce a gram of almond milk protein—and less than two gallons to produce a gram of kefir protein.

Even though kefir costs more than $4 per quart vs. about $2 for almond milk, it starts to look like quite a bargain on a protein basis.

Almond milk’s dilute nature lies at the heart of the critique made by Slate’s Maria Dolan, the most thoughtful one I’ve seen of the piece. My basic complaint against almond milk is that it’s a watered-down product: you take something that’s quite nutrient-dense and deluge it with water, essentially selling people a few almonds and a lot of water.

I’m thinking about it in the wrong way, counters Dolan. “Is drowning them in water to create almond milk really a bad thing from an environmental perspective?” she asks. “Just as making meat a garnish, not the centerpiece of your meal, thins the environmental impact of eating beef, so consuming almonds sparingly—by diluting them into milk, for instance—reduces their ecological impact.”

But I’m not sure that almond milk works to moderate people’s almond consumption. California’s rapid, and ecologically troubling, expansion of almond production is largely driven by booming exports, mainly to Asia. But US consumption is booming too. According to the Almond Board of California, the US market consumed 394 million pounds of almonds from the 2007-’08 harvest and 605 million pounds in 2012-’13. That’s a 50 percent jump in five years. And as I noted in my post, almond milk sales are surging at an even faster clip. It seems to me that the almond milk craze, whatever else it is, reflects a clever food industry strategy to sell yet more almonds, not a way for consumers to reduce their environmental impact.

The Almond Board also reports that California now provides 84 percent of the globe’s almonds. Given the state’s severe water constraints, and that current levels of production already require 60 percent of managed US honeybees for pollination, often to disastrous effect, we may all have to ease up—not just on the almond milk, but also on almonds themselves. Hell, even ignorant hipsters like me love almonds.

Excerpt from – 

Boy, Hipsters Sure Are Defensive About Their Almond Milk

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Boy, Hipsters Sure Are Defensive About Their Almond Milk

Campaign to label frankenfoods goes viral

Campaign to label frankenfoods goes viral

Want to be able to tell the difference between a natural fish and a genetically engineered frankensalmon in the dystopian food future? It looks like you may not be required to live on the crunchy West Coast for that.

After California’s GMO-labeling Proposition 37 failed to pass last fall, bills that would require labels for genetically modified food are rolling in Oregon and Washington, and similar initiatives are picking up steam in Minnesota, Missouri, and New Mexico, as well as in Connecticut and Vermont, where GMO-labeling legislation failed to pass last year amid threats of legal action from Monsanto.

New Mexico could be the first state to pass such a law. State Sen. Peter Wirth of Santa Fe, who is sponsoring the legislation, says the bill is aimed at “leveling the playing field” for food actually grown in fields.

Minnesota is home to the headquarters of General Mills, Hormel, Cargill, and Land-O-Lakes, which were all big contributors to the fight against Prop 37, but citizens groups are pushing legislators to pass a label law there too (and the local Fox affiliate covers them pretty appropriately). Meanwhile, Missouri’s legislation would just target genetically modified meat and fish.

The most interesting take on the national GMO label fight comes from the belly of the beast: the International Dairy Foods Association, which just had its annual meeting. From Meat Poultry News:

Connie Tipton, president and chief executive officer of the International Dairy Foods Association, urged food and beverage manufacturers to not rest on their laurels following the defeat of Proposition 37, legislation that would have required the labeling of bioengineered foods sold in California, this past November. Tipton spoke Jan. 28 at the IDFA’s annual Dairy Forum meeting.

“The drumbeat for GMO labeling is as loud as ever and proponents are taking their show on the road,” she said. “They are training their eyes on other states… Moreover, they learned from their mistakes. We anticipate that these new initiatives will be better written with a better ground game to push them forward.”

Tipton added that Walmart’s GMO-labeling efforts were cause for concern.

“It announced this past summer it planned to sell a new crop of genetically modified sweet corn created by Monsanto. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of us were scratching our heads when Wal-Mart added that it would label the product as containing GMO ingredients – even though the Food and Drug Administration has already said the product is safe. Given Wal-Mart’s size and market share, there are legitimate concerns that its decision on GMO labeling will force other retailers to march in lockstep behind the industry giant.

March in lockstep, eh? This is starting to sound familiar (and fascist), though GMO-labeling fascism seems more appealing than frankenfood-fascism, but maybe that’s just me.

Not to be completely outdone by states with fewer organic quinoa points-of-sale, supporters of California’s Proposition 37 have licked their wounds and swear to be back with another campaign to label GMOs next year.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link: 

Campaign to label frankenfoods goes viral

Posted in Citizen, GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Campaign to label frankenfoods goes viral