• gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah, but tbh, it kinda makes sense. You can’t print something on the packaging that says something that’s not the case. You can’t call it “oat milk”, because otherwise people should rightfully assume it was milk with some oat in it.

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgBanned
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, that wouldn’t be “rightful”. It’s common knowledge that soy milk, oat milk, coconut milk and scouring cream (Scheuermilch in German) don’t contain cow milk. And it was never an issue when coconut milk was the only alternative milk-like product that was widely available.

    • iusearchbtw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine calling a non dairy liquid “milk” prior to ten years ago, not conceivable

      Coconut milk, milk of magnesium, soy milk? Made up woke nonsense

    • Genius@lemmy.zipBanned
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is milk with some oat in it. The milk part of the oat. That’s exactly what it is.

      You mean people might think it’s breast milk with some oat in it.

      Rather than legislating plant milk, I suggest we legislate breast milk so that it legally has to have the word breast on the packaging.