Skip to main content

MilkTruth Channels FoodBabe, Flops

Credit: SciBabe
Anyone who follows me on twitter knows that the 'real food' movement and their many meme-worthy sayings tend to annoy me. The one that seems to get the most play, coined by the FoodBabe, is something to the effect of "don't eat it if a third grader can't pronounce it". To anyone who has ever taken a chemistry class, this will sound ludicrous; alas, it's a popular saying in the lay media, and even something I've heard reiterated by healthcare professionals. I get the saying (a very long list of ingredients can be a marker for a food that isn't particularly nutrient dense), but I personally find that it spreads fear and contributes to scientific illiteracy more than it does educate the consumer. As I've covered in a couple posts here, and others have done as well, many of the ingredients added to foods serve a very functional purpose, and believe it or not, food scientists are not putting them there to kill you.



That all being said, I was quite surprised (-ish?)  yesterday when I saw a MilkTruth commercial employing similar FoodBabe-esque advertising tactics. The very short ad can be found here . It begins by dichotomizing 'real milk' against almond milk and leads into a spelling bee contest, where a student is asked to spell lecithin, an emulsifier commonly added to non-dairy milks, and another is asked to spell milk. The ad closes saying "Milk wins! Ingredients you can spell".  Ingredients you can spell - what a meaningful health message!!!!! (eyeroll). It seems whoever started the campaign might be following me on twitter, since I joked about this back in September. 



 The complete ridiculousness of the ad didn't really strike me until this morning. Lecithin is just another name for phosphatidylcholine, Guess where phosphatidylcholine is found? Cow's milk! (1) Essentially, MilkTruth is calling Almond Milk not 'real' because it contains an added ingredient that is already found endogenously in cow's (and all mammals') milk. I guess it's hard to find something in almond milk to fear-monger about since it's not worthy of fear.

 Regardless of which you choose to drink, no individual food is magic or poison and it's pretty shameful that the MilkTruth campaign is stooping this low to get a one-up on AlmondMilk. Check the quality of your diet, and if almond milk fits, go for it. I'm sure you'll somehow manage to not be protein deficient if you opt for it over cow's milk. And maybe, in some crazy world, you might drink both.... (assuming you're not vegan/lactose intolerant/religiously,culturally opposed)



1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3944656

Comments

  1. CarbSaneApril 28, 2015 at 6:51 AM

    This is kinda funny -- lecithin is phosphatidylcholine -- because I was just looking at something on membrane synthesis and the article remarked at how almost "dismissive" the term lecithin is. Don't ask me how, but I've known it is in eggs since I can remember (thanks Mom you freak you!) and indeed according to Wikipedia it was first isolated from egg yolks ;-)

    Yeah, shame on MIlkTruth if they need to demonize almond milk over this!!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beware the Meta-Analysis: Fat, Guidelines, and Biases

Headlines were abuzz this week, reporting that a new review of randomized controlled trials at the time of the low-fat guidelines didn't support their institution. Time , Business Insider , and The Verge all covered the topic with sensationalist headlines (e.g. 'We should never have told people to stop eating fat' #weneverdid). I won't spend every part of this blog picking apart the entire meta-analysis; you can read it over at the open access journal, BMJ Open Heart (1) -- (note, for myself, i'm adding an extra level of skepticism for anything that gets published in this journal). I'm also not going to defend low-fat diets either, but rather, use this meta-analysis to point out some critical shortcomings in nutritional sciences research, and note that we should be wary of meta-analyses when it comes to diet trials. First off, let's discuss randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They are considered the gold standard in biomedical research; in the hierarc
21 comments
Read more

On PURE

The PURE macronutrients studies were published in the Lancet journals today and the headlines / commentaries are reminding us that everything we thought we think we were told we knew about nutrition is wrong/misguided, etc. Below is my non-epidemiologist's run down of what happened in PURE. A couple papers came out related to PURE, but the one causing the most buzz is the relationship of the macronutrients to mortality. With a median follow up of 7.4 years, 5796 people died and 4784 had a major cardiovascular event (stroke, MCI). The paper modeled the impacts of self reported dietary carbohydrate, total fat, protein, monounsaturated (MUFA), saturated (SFA), and polyunsaturated (PUFA) fatty acid intakes on cardiovascular (CVD), non-CVD and total mortality; all macros were represented as a percentage of total self reported energy intakes and reported/analyzed in quintiles (energy intakes between 500-5000kcals/day were considered plausible..). All dietary data was determined by a
10 comments
Read more

Nutrition Recommendations Constantly Change...Don't They?

I was on Facebook the other day, and someone in a group I'm in made a statement about not being sure whether to eat dairy, because "one week its bad, and the next its good". This is something I hear all too often from people: nutrition is complex, confusing, and constantly changing. One week 'X' is bad, the next 'X' is good. From an outsider's perspective, nutrition seems like a battlefield - low fat vs low carb vs Mediterranean vs Paleo vs Veg*n. Google any of these diets and you'll find plenty of websites saying that the government advice is wrong and they've got the perfect diet, the solution to all of your chronic woes, guarantee'ing weight loss, muscle growth, longevity, etc. Basically, if you've got an ailment, 'X' diet is the cure. I can certainly see this as being overwhelming from a non-scientist/dietitian perspective. Nutrition is confusing...right? Screenshot, DGA: 1980, health.gov From an insider's pe
9 comments
Read more