You should try vanilla Silk, if you live somewhere it's available. Silk is the brand of soy milk that made me realize soy milk is better than cow milk.
For the unsweetened unflavored variety, my local Whole Foods carries Silk, 365, and/or Earth Balance. All three have about 1-2 g sugar per cup, instead of 6-8g in normal (sweetened) soy milk. Some other kinds of milk are worse. I used to know someone who drank goat's milk and some other powdered milk that had 11g and 12g sugar per cup, respectively.
My cereal is moderately low on sugar already (6g per serving among 30g carbs), and it took some getting used to it with low-sugar soy milk, but I can't go back now. If I have to use "normal" (really: sweetened) soy milk, which is still only 6 or 7g sugar per cup, I can feel the sugar rush and it makes me mad.
It's made me hypersensitive to (added) sugar in most foods. I recently tried drinking some sweetened almond milk and I couldn't drink it. It was awful.
For my money, Almond's unsweetened flavour profile wins hands down. It has 1/2 the calories of "unsweetened" Silk. Here are some data for those interested in the comparison. The issue is that most people don't understand what they are drinking.
It's weird how almond, soy or coconut liquids can legally be called "milk" none of those sources have nipples. Coffee is liquid from fermented beans similar to soy it's no more milk than soy is.
I know here in Canada for decades margarine had to be smuggled into the country, when it was legal it couldn't be yellow like butter (but even butter has artificial yellow colour added), it certainly couldn't be called butter.
They can be called "milk" legally because the definition of milk includes the whitish fluid produced by plants. The dairy industry has tried to argue against its use "to prevent consumer confusion" to no avail: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/04/dairy-lobby-t...
Lewis Black said it (ranted it?) better: "There's no such thing as soy milk, okay? And I know that because there's no soy tit, now is there? I don't know a lot, but I know you need a breast for milk."—Rules of Enragement, "Ireland and Health", 7:04-7:11.
I don't think it was anticompetitive reasons although the end result was that I believe it was farmers created a market for butter that margarine would benefit from.
IIRC, some U.S. states (Wisconsin might have been one) had similar laws. The margarine companies used the workaround of including a separate food coloring packet, which the customer could mix in at home.
It's not about defrauding anyone in this case: Margarine looks disgusting without added colour. Even if you prefer margarine or have made a fully informed choice you might still very well prefer to add colour to it before using it.
The reason for laws restricting colour additions to margarine was explicitly because it is sufficiently close to butter in taste, texture and usage that it created a substantial competitive pressure on butter sales because people would happily pick margarine over butter to save money. So much so that the separate coloring failed to stem the growing demand.
I don't think Coconut milk is intended as a replacement for regular/soy milk though. Its even packaged in tin cans, so I'm assuming the primary usage is as an ingredient in Southeast Asian foods (esp. Thai Curries)
I think the commenter you're replying to is referring to a type of drink that's a milk-substitute containing coconuts, not the canned stuff that's got tons of coconut oil (and thus very fatty) ... though I love both, it's kind of confusing that their names are very similar.
