I already buy stuff like oat milk and it never bothered me that it's not actually milk. Same with plant based butters etc
I don’t believe oat milk should be allowed to use the word “milk” and if it wants to then should be prefaced with words describing it as “imitation milk” or similar.
You keep using that word, but you haven't explained what makes it unnatural. There are people who eat insects right now, and I'm willing to bet people have been eating insects as long as there have been people. It seems more "natural" to me than drinking another aninals lactations. I don't want to eat insects, but you've offered no explanation why it is insufficient to list the ingredients (which is already required, making it different from your "organic" example).
Also, "milk" has referred to any thick, white substance for centuries now. Consider "milk of magnesia". It's the cow dairy industry that is trying to appropriate the word.
the definition of flour is "ground substances," see also bone flour, fossilized flour, stone flour...
Nobody cares about "stone flour" etc because it not sold as flour on a shelf next to real flour. It's not intended to mislead.
please don't assume that all languages have the same sneaky sub-meanings, or, if we speak the same language[1], don't assume that everyone is as ignorant or stupid as you are
Like… you do realize the parts of animals we eat are pretty gross right? The things that go into sausages and such? Bone marrow is a delicacy for gods sake!
There’s foods that I think are gross and won’t eat… calimari for instance… but they usually come down to sensory things like taste, texture or smell. The ingredients don’t usually come into play.
The word milk can be traced back thousands of years to the indo-european form h₂melǵ- which means... milk. Your attempt to re-frame this is ridiculous.
> Also, "milk" has referred to any thick, white substance for centuries now. Consider "milk of magnesia".
These are called metaphors. They do not attempt to mislead and confuse people.
The whole point of calling almond juice "milk" is to confuse people.
Well, if you develop time travel, then this information will come in handy. That has no bearing on how the word is used now or has been used for 100s of years.
> They do not attempt to mislead and confuse people.
I'm not sure how you can accuse "Oatly" or "Almond Breeze" of trying to mislead. The biggest word on their packaging is the main ingredient. Most non-dairy milks have a picture of the main ingredient on it. If people are confused by that, then they'll just as easily confuse orange juice for milk.
> The whole point of calling almond juice "milk"...
Is because it is a milk, and people can use it like any other milk.
Do you think unnatural medicines produced in a lab should carry a similar warning compared to their natural remedy counterparts?
I'm not a fan of nut milk being called milk, because I enjoy meaningful categories and strict categorization, but nut milk has been called nut milk for literal centuries.
There is nothing unsafe, unnatural, or otherwise „bad“ about using insects for food - other than an embarrassing, unreflective revulsion.
Now if you are 100% vegan, I can accept that
Not to forget also that the island that invented delicious maggoty cheese aka "casu marzu" also belongs to Italy.
But don't forbid other people (in Italy) to be able to eat them.
"I don't want to do X, so nobody should be allowed to do X". It drives me bonkers.
There are valid health concerns of insect based "meat" and insect derived flour. Including: higher baseline contamination of harmful bacteria, high levels of arsenic, questionable nutritional value, digestive issues with the hardshells common to the types of insects used for these products.
OP said: > There is nothing unsafe, unnatural, or otherwise „bad“ about using insects for food
I'm refuting that statement.
There are safety concerns with insect based protein. There are aspects that could be considered "bad".
I'll assume you incorrectly replied to the wrong post because that makes more sense.
I think things should be packaged properly and with proper descriptions. The same as I don't want to go to the store and buy Parmesan cheese only to find it's actually chemically altered tofu. That's not what I bought nor what I wanted.
If I wanted tofu cheese I would go buy tofu cheese.
We've become accustomed to accepting labels at face value, so I believe there is a requirement to continue that practice.
Flour comprised of mostly insects should say that, just like whole wheat flour is separated from pizza flour, as they contain different grain milling and grains.
But we should teach us that there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating insects, it's not gross. We just think it is because of cultural reasons. And those can be changed over time.
It was media outlets that spun the story this way - but in reality, insect flour is just another ingredient you can use for cooking, but not baking.
This seems like a fictional problem. Who is trying to pass off insect "flour" as wheat flour? What possible motivation would a company have for doing so? Cricket "flour" costs like 10x as much as wheat flour
You say that like those aren't the most important factors to consider in light of Italy's obvious economic and cultural interest in preserving the reputation of their culinary industry and heritage.
I was not aware that you have billions of people to feed.
For that matter, nobody ever suggested replacing wheat flour with insect flour because it has none of the properties required for baking stuff, but rationality was never really relevant on that topic...
And there's nothing "natural" about it :)
How is insect flour any more or less natural than processed and bleached wheat flour? I legitimately do not understand, other than the long tail of cultural norms. It's not any less natural.