Only within the context of color, texture, taste and partial mineral content do non-breast milk share any similarities with breast milk. Not because something is labeled as milk doesn’t mean that it is milk; in reference to the value it offers to a child. There is absolutely no substitute for breast milk, all alternatives are inferior. It is not the color or texture that attracts a child to the milk of its mother, it’s the potency. This is not to deny that these attributes are not appreciated, it only means they are not significant.
Some breast milk alternatives do have minerals in them, but they are just creamy white water, not milk. Sure, we refer to almond milk, walnut milk, soy milk (demon). Etc. as milk but that is only in context of color, texture and taste. This does not qualify them as a substitute for breast milk. It is only through our spectacles they are considered milk. For a child, milk is something completely different; it is a potent biological fluid packed with the hormones of its parent.
Breast milk is a bonding, regulatory and instructional fuel, designed to influence the genetics of a child accordingly to its specific course of nature. None of these are offered in the drinking of any alternative milk. Hormones are a key part of why breast milk is necessary for a child. Hormones are genetic instructions that teach our cells how to behave accordingly to the specie or family we belong. In other words milk is a builder and an educational fluid for the child. Parents tend to remove these qualities and only focus on the mineral content; which explains the reason why they believe it can be substituted.