Talk:Soy yogurt

Taste

 * I think it's a bit off that the article claims that homemade soy yogurt has a soy aftertaste, while commercially bought soy yogurt does not. In my experience both have a noticeable soy taste. I am not trying imply this is bad, or that homemade tastes the same a commercially produced soygurt, but really they do taste different than dairy yogurt. No way around it. --Mrdude (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it definitely has a soy taste, commercial or not. 78.151.174.92 (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Bacteria
If the bacteria don't have lactose to feed on what do they feed on in soy milk? 78.151.174.92 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sucrose. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of science/legal, too much POV-pushing
This article had a vegan-advocacy POV at the expense of the actual science behind the production of this type of product, and the legality of marketing a non-dairy product using a dairy-legal term such as "yogurt".

First, yogurt is a dairy product, and not only is it illegal in Europe to use the word for products not of animal origin, but so too in the USA. (I haven't checked for other English-speaking countries, or the rest of the world.)

This article depended on 3 citations to the self-published soya.be website, whose disclaimer says "Information presented on this site is gained from personal experience, magazines, brochures, and information sent to us." It also relied heavily on the Lightowler citation (over 20 years old) to support that you can make it at home, the price is similar to [dairy] yogurt (outdated), and nutrient information. The Lightowler paper isn't heavily cited in the industry, per Google Scholar and other online searches I performed. The remaining (4) citations were those I added last month.

The article omits the science behind the manufacture/production of the products and falsely mentioned the use of dairy-specific bacteria strains in the Ingredients section (now removed).

My own search into the subject shows that there are numerous papers on nutritional research of 'soy yogurts', including composition, bacterial strains used, nutrient content, etc. This article could benefit from citing some of these papers. The product seems highly variable. Basically it seems that the product is a soy-based creamy mixture made to resemble the consistency/mouthfeel of yogurt, with cultures added to give it a probiotic effect (mimicking why some people consume dairy yogurt, but not necessary in the manufacture of the product), and is usually fortified with nutrients that are otherwise lacking in the resulting product to meet or exceed the nutritional composition of dairy yogurt. That's what I found.

I have edited the article accordingly to remove the false and/or uncited content. I probably won't spend the time to rebuild what should be there, namely citations to research or manufacturing showing the process, ingredients and nutrition (even though ing. and nutr. are variable).

Links that might be of interest:
 * Fermentation of Soy Milk by Lactic Acid Bacteria. A Review
 * Soy Yogurt Vs. Regular Yogurt

Platonk (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Except it tastes like yogurt, is made using the same bacteria as yogurt, looks like yogurt, has similar nutritional profile to yogurt, and actually IS allowed to be referred to as soy yogurt in the EU and UK. GliderMaven (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * So, no, your edits are inappropriate. GliderMaven (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. Amendment 171 sought to increase the current ban on using "milk", "butter" and "yogurt" terms (for plant-based products) to further encompass dairy-like descriptors such as "creamy" and "buttery". It is only the amendment that was dropped, not the original ruling.


 * There's this source, "This week, the EU officially withdrew Amendment 171 from the table - a bill that would have banned plant-[based] dairy companies from using words like “buttery” or “creamy” to describe their products ... Regulations on dairy-free alternatives are already restrictive. Legislation passed in 2013, means words like “cheese,” “yoghurt,” can only be used to describe milk-based products which must originate from animals."


 * This source perhaps explains it better: "Amendment 171 proposes to ban terms such as 'buttery' and 'creamy' for purely plant-based products. The vote followed on from a 2017 ruling, which saw the European Court of Justice ban the use of dairy names such as 'milk', 'butter', 'cheese', and 'yoghurt' in the dairy-free category." After explaining how and why A171 was dropped, they continued: "Indeed, the European dairy sector is celebrating EU legislators' decision to protect dairy terms - including 'milk', 'whey', 'cream', 'butter', 'buttermilk', 'cheese', and 'yoghurt' within the CAP", an indication that the original ruling was left intact.


 * From the current, standing regulations: "The following shall be reserved exclusively for milk products. (a) the following names used at all stages of marketing: (i) whey, (ii) cream, (iii) butter, (iv) buttermilk, (v) butteroil, (vi) caseins, (vii) anhydrous milk fat (AMF), (viii) cheese, (ix) yogurt, (x) kephir, ..."


 * So I'm sorry, but the rise and fall of Amendment 171 changes nothing about my edits to this article. The word "yogurt" may not be used in the EU (and USA) to describe or label a soy-based product. Whether or not it looks like, feels like, tastes like, or purports to be nutritionally-like a yogurt made from cow's milk, is irrelevant.


 * Platonk (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)