Hacker News Reader

Comment by fineIllregister | Hacker News Reader

> unnatural

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.

View on HN

> It's the cow dairy industry that is trying to appropriate the word.

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.

> The word milk can be traced back thousands of years to the indo-european...

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.

I’m referring to lab grown meat as unnatural. Insects are just plain gross to me. Although they are natural. But shouldn’t be called “flour”. It’s not.

> But shouldn’t be called “flour”. It’s not.

the definition of flour is "ground substances," see also bone flour, fossilized flour, stone flour...

You know very well that the purpose of calling it "insect flour" is to mislead and to normalize it.

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.

> You know very well

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

[1] https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/farina/

There is absolutely nothing misleading about the phrase "insect flour". And people are allowed to try to normalize things. See "part of a balanced breakfast" from cereal commercials.

How is “insect flour” misleading? The word “insect” is right there in the name! And who cares if it’s normalized or not? If it’s useful and makes healthy, delicious food, I don’t care what it’s made out of.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com