Like an estimated two-thirds of the world’s population, I don’t digest lactose well, which makes the occasional latte an especially pricey proposition. So it was a pleasant surprise when, shortly after moving to San Francisco, I ordered a drink at Blue Bottle Coffee and didn’t have to ask—or pay extra—for a milk alternative. Since 2022, the once Oakland-based, now Nestlé-owned cafe chain has defaulted to oat milk, both to cut carbon emissions and because lots of its affluent-tending customers were already choosing it as their go-to.
Plant-based milks, a multibillion-dollar global market, aren’t just good for the lactose intolerant: They’re also better for the climate. Dairy cows belch a lot of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide; they contribute at least 7 percent of US methane output, the equivalent emissions of 10 million cars. Cattle need a lot of room to graze, too: Plant-based milks use about a tenth as much land to produce the same quantity of milk. And it takes almost a thousand gallons of water to manufacture a gallon of dairy milk—four times the water cost of alt-milk from oats or soy.
But if climate concerns push us toward the alt-milk aisle, dairy still has price on its side. Even though plant-based milks are generally much less resource-intensive, they’re often more expensive. Walk into any Starbucks, and you’ll likely pay around 70 cents extra for nondairy options.
. Dairy’s affordability edge, explains María Mascaraque, an analyst at market research firm Euromonitor International, relies on the industry’s ability to produce “at larger volumes, which drives down the cost per carton.” American demand for milk alternatives, though expected to grow by 10 percent a year through 2030, can’t beat those economies of scale. (Globally, alt-milks aren’t new on the scene—coconut milk is even mentioned in the Sanskrit epic Mahābhārata, which is thousands of years old.)
What else contributes to cow milk’s dominance? Dairy farmers are “political favorites,” says Daniel Sumner, a University of California, Davis, agricultural economist. In addition to support like the “Dairy Checkoff,” a joint government-industry program to promote milk products (including the “Got Milk?” campaign), they’ve long raked in direct subsidies currently worth around $1 billion a year.
Big Milk fights hard to maintain those benefits, spending more than $7 million a year on lobbying. That might help explain why the US Department of Agriculture has talked around the climate virtues of meat and dairy alternatives, refusing to factor sustainability into its dietary guidelines—and why it has featured content, such as a 2013 article by then–Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, trumpeting the dairy industry as “leading the way in sustainable innovation.”
But the USDA doesn’t directly support plant-based milk. It does subsidize some alt-milk ingredients—soybean producers, like dairy, net close to $1 billion a year on average, but that crop largely goes to feeding meat- and dairy-producing livestock and extracting oil. A 2021 report by industry analysts Mintec Limited and Frost Procurement Adventurer also notes that, while the inputs for dairy (such as cattle feed) for dairy are a little more expensive than typical plant-milk ingredients, plant alternatives face higher manufacturing costs. Alt-milk makers, Sumner says, may also have thinner profit margins: Their “strategy for growth is advertisement and promotion and publicity,” which isn’t cheap.
Starbucks, though, does benefit from economies of scale. In Europe, the company is slowly dropping premiums for alt-milks, a move it attributes to wanting to lower corporate emissions. “Market-level conditions allow us to move more quickly” than other companies, a spokesperson for the coffee giant told me, but didn’t say if or when the price drop would happen elsewhere.
In the United States, meanwhile, it’s a waiting game to see whether the government or corporations drive down alt-milk costs. Currently, Sumner says, plant-based milk producers operate under an assumption that “price isn’t the main thing” for their buyers—as long as enough privileged consumers will pay up, alt-milk can fill a premium niche. But it’s going to take a bigger market than that to make real progress in curbing emissions from food.
Need to keep the ag subsidies flowing so that rural areas keep voting conservative
I have a LOT of issues with rural conservatives consistently voting against their own interests near constantly
But the issue is that it would basically lead to mass unemployment (people underestimate how many workers are hired by farms) and widespread poverty (think appalachia)
Just like with LLMs, driverless vehicles, and the systematic removal of indoor dining at fast food places, we are looking at the kind of mass unemployment that more or less requires UBI.
The industry got too big and too reliant on subsidies. A reckoning will occur at some point, it’s just a matter of whether it’s announced ahead of time or surprises everyone.
“It’s not a good time right now” - the party in power at the time
Too big and too reliant on subsidies is a feature, not a bug. You want your farmers producing a fairly large surplus most of the time, because the harm resulting from a major food shortage is catastrophic. A widespread drought, disease, natural disaster, crop failure, or other shortage needs to be made up with other foodstuffs.
Subsidization incentivizes production even when market rates fall below profitability, which is what happens when production is significantly greater than actual demand.
Sorry, but that’s horseshit.
Taking away dairy subsidies would drive up milk and milk product prices, pushing more people to buy alternatives instead. Any loss of employment in the dairy industry is balanced by new jobs in manufacturing plant milks and dairy alternatives. This isn’t people being replaced by robots, it’s cows being replaced by plants. You still need pretty much the same workforce to package and distribute it regardless.
New Zealand and Australia virtually eliminated agricultural subsidies and their industries are doing just fine.
Only 1% of americans work in the primary sector and that is not only comprised of farmers. Furthermore, there are more farming products than dairy, oats for oat milk have to be farmed somewhere as well.
It’s not as if Democrats don’t also throw plenty of bones to farmers.
Even if the farmers themselves are likely to be relatively conservative, they’re such a politically sympathetic group that no one wants to be seen as “going after hard-working real American farmers!”. Things like the Iowa caucuses playing a huge role in national politics don’t help either (although the Dems have thankfully killed that).
One thing nobody has commented on - how that article slips in a seemingly positive mention of Nestlé (they own the cafe that uses plant milks). That raised my eyebrows.
The dairy lobby in the US is huge money. If you ever want to know why we’re making a seemingly stupid decision follow the money, look at the entrenched interests and read some history. We subsidize dairy farmers because we used to subsidize dairy farmers and they spent a bunch of their earnings lobbying for more subsidies.
Except almonds. Almonds are terrible water wasters, and mostly grown in California where they can least afford the water.
Still more efficient on resource utilization than animal agriculture. If you hate almond milk for that reason, you should want the dairy industry completely abolished.
Almond is the worst of the nut milks, but it’s STILL way better for the environment than dairy.
What you get in stores is not even really almond milk. Real almond milk would be way too expensive to be competitive.
Exactly… Ughh I still fail to understand why almond milk is popular among vegans. It’s very expensive and doesn’t even taste that nice…
True. Soy and oat milk can be very good, depending on the brand.
Reccomendation on brands?
My favorite oat milk is Oatly Barista, the best soy milk I’ve tried is from Joya, but I haven’t seen it outside of Austria yet. Alpro is quite good and more widely available (at least in Europe). In North America, Silk seems to be great from what I’ve heard. Store brand soy milks tend to taste pretty bad from my experience here in Germany, but some of them might have improved since I tried them years ago.
Oatly and Califia both have great oat milks. They also have barista milks that substitute for half and half in coffee!
oat milk is the jammy out of all the alt milks imo
Even soy milk in the US isn’t really just soy milk. There are so much stuff added to it. It’s thick too.
I grew up drinking a lot of real soy milk which has a watery consistency that I can get at some Vietnamese / Chinese grocery stores or tofu shops.
Though I guess the US put thickeners and other stuff into theirs to help imitate milk
Still better than dairy.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
My personal theory is that we subsidize dairy not for the milk, but for the cheese. As far as I’m aware you can’t make cheese out of plant milks, and we’ve gotten pretty reliant on cheese as a source of protein and other nutrients in our American diets - especially among children and lower income diets.
You can make plant-based cheeses. And some of them are pretty good. But they lack all of the same properties. Like, you can get a cheese that that when hot will stretch a little bit like the cheese on a pizza, but as it cools off it loses all of that elasticity and is not great for lukewarm pizza. You can get cheese that is pretty decent for lukewarm and hot pizza, but it doesn’t have that stretch. It more just rips apart. And you definitely don’t have the span of “flavors” of cheese or whatever you’d call it. Some of the big ones, sure, but again, they don’t have all the same physical properties.
I don’t mind the loss of those properties, but many people do.
Cheese isn’t a great source for protein compared to beans in regards to price though.
Honestly, I think we subsidize the dairy industry simply because they’ve been lobbying so long. Meat is subsidized too. It’s the one market that the conservatives are fine with ignoring the mantra of “free market” and support regulating the hell out of it in whatever way supports the “farmers” (big farm is nothing like the labeling suggests and is all headed by big guys in suits who likely never have been on a farm in their life).
Beans can taste amazing when prepared by a competent chef, but often taste like shit when prepared wrong.
Cheese, on the other hand, is much more forgiving of poor preparation. Eat it straight out of the package, sliced and on bread or crackers, melt it into sauces, or grill it, or any number of other uses.
Simply put, cheese is fast and easy, and can elevate almost any other food.
Also, try to get kids to eat beans. It can happen. But not easily, and often you have to do it in the form of chili, with loads of cheese.
You’re just describing American children raised in a poor diet. Beans are a staple food among not of the world population, including their children. They’re super easy to prepare as well. Talking about the extremely fatty and unhealthy cheese like that is probably one of the many reasons the US is obese and unhealthy.
Cheese is not a healthy part of a diet in any quantity where it provides a significant protein of the person’s protein needs.
Both meat and dairy are subsidized because they consume huge amounts of corn, and the corn industry is an even bigger lobby.
I seem to recall people are working on bacteria-produced casein, and so that may, if it could be done at scale, solve the ethical and environmental problems, but I wonder if casein in that form will be just as bad as dairy is in its “natural” form.
Look up: cheese caves. 👍
In short: There is so much excess cheese out there that the US government is literally storing billions of pounds of it in underground caves.
Let’s raid. They can’t stop us all!!!
What the fuck
Soy cheese is called tofu.
Government cheese has been a thing since at least the great depression.
Protein can be found in much better food sources than dairy. It’s a shame the protein myth prevails in this country even into the 2020s…
Cheese was one of our main obstacles toward cutting out dairy. I came across a vegan cheese sauce recipe that utilizes blended steamed potatoes & carrots for the texture and nutritional yeast and other spices for the flavor. Been using it for a few years now and haven’t looked back yet.
It’s hard to find good nutritional yeast though. Since they are quite expensive, it is not easy to try around until you find one, that does not taste like garbage.
Yes it’s an expensive purchase, but I buy it once every 6 months or so. It goes a long way and I use little (⅓ cup) at a time.
Some of my family think we’re living large because we can “afford” cashew nuts, which we use for many purposes, but don’t think twice about spending 3 times more on meat every single week.
Yeah, once you found a brand, that tastes well, it’s not an issue anymore. But paying a lot just to notice, that it tastes disgusting, kinda sucks.
Unsure if you’re talking about cow milk, plant based milk, cashews or nutritional yeast 🤷♂️
Nutritional yeast
Probably because everyone tried only the shittiest alt-malks, assume they are all bad, and somehow don’t get heartburn and diarrhea and gunky mouth and throat feel from cow milk. I save all my lactose intolerance suffering for cheese and ice cream.
Seriously though it’s the same as people that say only bad things about tofu but have only eaten white American ‘recipes’ that genuinely suck. Meanwhile Asians happily inhaling literal tons of it prepared in actually good meals. Try making bread from scratch without salt (or salty ingredients) and that’s what tofu foods for the white market remind me of.
I had this fantastic plant-based milk product on my store shelves called “Not Milk”. I really enjoyed it. Had this mild coconut flavor which might turn off some (not me) but anyway, it’s gone now because it was too expensive for the market I’m in.
Meanwhile gallons of milk flow for the same purpose, only subsidized for under half the cost per ounce.
As we do, we stifle innovation ourselves based on our past.
check out your local Aldi. They’ve got a range of almond, soy, coconut and oat milk at very reasonable prices. I was loving coconut milk until my friend told me how high in saturated fat it is (like really high.) Since then I do about half coconut and half light almond for my oatmeal and I can’t say enough how good it tastes. I’m eating oatmeal as a dessert now sometimes because I like it so much.
Edit: had originally said cholesterol but totally had meant saturated fat. Thanks to @DarthFrodo for bringing the error to my attention.
I thought almonds took too much water or something?
Less than regular milk so if you’re divided between almond and cow milk, to for almond.
Depends on where they are grown.
California is a huge Almond supplier, but they have had frequent droughts. People get angry when they are asked to conserve water and then everything they’ve conserved is used to grow a water-hungry crop.
This could be solved by growing them somewhere else, or desalinating (California is a coastal state after all).
we need to mandate water efficient farming pratices
Zones 5-9 are recommended or they won’t live through the winter. Also, have they really worked out the desalination thing for large areas? https://www.growinganything.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
Plants don’t produce cholesterol, only animals. Coconut oil is high in saturated fat that seems to be bad for blood cholesterol levels, but coconut milk (for drinking, in cartons) has hardly any fat in it. The one I looked up has half of the saturated fat compared to 3,5% fat cows milk.
Thanks for the correction, I totally meant saturated fat but my brain shit the bed. I’ll correct my post and note the edit. Thanks again!
Extra thick oatmilk is the way to go.
Butter and heavy cream don’t really have a good replacement, but regular milk has so many alternatives it’s crazy. Almond milk and oat milk I prefer to regular old milk.
Vegan butter or coconut oil sub well for butter, depending on the use. And canned coconut milk works pretty well for heavy cream in baked goods.
Check to see if your store has “Nextmilk” made by Silk. It is cheaper than “Not Milk” and tastes better!
Because lots of people in your country drink it, like it, and even more eat things made from it. Like cheese.
“Two thirds of people can’t tolerate lactose” is utterly fucking meaningless in this context. Most of those are in Asia. Last I checked, it was countries giving out subsidies, not some nebulous world council.
And nearly all farming gets subsidised, because that reduces reliance on external countries. You’ve seen what capitalism did to housing. You don’t want that to happen to food.
Americans are at 36% lactose intolerant. Which is surprisingly, to me anyways, high.
And should corn and cattle get the bulk of the subsidies? If it’s about food alone, maybe not.
Can you make cheese out of almond milk? If I’m doing my math right, 75% of milk is made into cheese.
Yes, there are almond and oat milk cheese alternatives. Ben and Jerry’s has been selling almond milk ice cream for a long time.
My takeaway from this is that Nestle probably doesn’t own any dairy companies, but probably does own a plant that makes oat milk. They keep all the profit in their own ecosystem by buying their supplies from themself and then get to tell us how green and thoughtful they are.
Are you suggesting cow’s milk is more sustainable/ecological than any plant milk?
No, they’re suggesting that Nestle is probably acting in bad faith by attempting to close a monopolistic gap rather than genuinely doing something for the betterment of the world
Moving to plant-based milks would be a net positive for the world, right?
Again, you’re dissenting on something that wasn’t asserted. If that’s your opinion, then that’s your opinion, and that’s fine. But, if there’s a conflict of interest in a study, then we have reason to doubt the results are legitimate. This is what the comment was saying, and that’s drastically far from a total conclusion one way or the other.
Your question also suggests there’s one correct answer, which just plane isn’t true. It makes more ecological sense for some people to consume milk products in favor of plant based just based on location alone.
Your question also suggests there’s one correct answer, which just plane isn’t true. It makes more ecological sense for some people to consume milk products in favor of plant based just based on location alone.
I don’t think that’s ever true.
Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
What you eat has a far larger impact on ecology/GHGs than where it comes from.
Why aren’t you responding to the topic of the thread? What you responded to was not the heart of my comment nor was it the point I was trying to get across to you.
Do you think Nestle is acting in good faith?
You really insisted on steering the conversation toward this study, yet it’s largely flawed. I know I’m taking the bait, but as someone who grew up on a farm in a rural community, several red flags were very apparent. What they are talking about are gross emissions, that’s what’s measured by carbon capture. What these types of measurements don’t consider, is how much CO2 the immediate environment is going to recapture and make use of. Cattle and buffalo before them have been a part of the north American prairies for thousands of years, and the cycle has always been the bovine graze on the grass, which spurs regrowth, aided by the gasses emitted by the bovine after eating said grass.
I believe they’re being selective about where they’re measuring their data as well, because it does not make sense for land use change to be a factor in the vast majority of cases for grass fed cattle. Again, this is why location matters, cattle do well on grassland. It also makes no sense for the emissions of machinery to be coupled in the data with the emissions of cattle. It’s also virtually impossible for the machinery emissions to be that low for wheat and rye specifically, because I know first hand how many diesel tank refills it takes get the seeding done alone, let alone the constant maintenance it takes afterwards. It doesn’t take any machinery to raise grassland cattle there but it sure does take machinery to farm grains, farmers have heavy machinery in their fields constantly. You have to plow the field, disc, harrow, spray herbicide, spray pesticide, seed the crop, spray fertilizer, roll the peas, swath the canola, harvest all of it with a massive machine, all while a cow chills watching from the next field over lol.
My guess is that they’re referring to warehouse cattle, which don’t exist everywhere (outright illegal in Canada I think). This is why it matters where it comes from. Can’t really verify any of their data either since the source studies are behind a pay wall.
I’d also even say there’s far more to ecology than raw emissions. Almond production has been a massive hindrance on California’s water supply, They’re prone to drought already, and they’re still mass producing almonds while in a drought right now. Regardless of emissions, we would be actively contributing to an ongoing crisis if we increased plant milk demand. To do so out of ecological principle would be incredibly ironic. But, that seems to be what encouraging plant based milk over cattle has done.
Third party here, if we want to be fair and acknowledge that some milk supplies are worse than others, let’s also acknowledge that nut milks are notoriously water intensive as opposed to a grain based milk like oat. But I’ll heartily agree that water rights, management, and surrounding legal actions in California are… nuts (bu dum tsss) right now.
My takeaway from this is that Nestle probably doesn’t own any dairy companies,
They probably do, but oat milk is probably not great for making milk chocolate or several other of their food products. Decent coffee also hides less appetizing milks somewhat.
I prefer plant-based milk over dairy, it tastes better and it lasts longer. I tried plant based milk years ago and never went back. I’ve tried cashew, macadamia, rice, soy, almond, coconut, oat, and sunflower. Some of my favorites are vanilla almond, dark chocolate almond and cashew, vanilla macadamia, and vanilla coconut. My family still buys dairy milk, but we always bought plant-based butter. I buy cream cheese to use as bread spread.
Are there actual studies showing that plant-based alternatives are better for health (on individuals that digest lactose just fine like me) ?
I switched to alt-milks for ecological reason but media keep talking about the negative health effects of «ultra-transformed food», which alt-milk very much sounds like…
Well oatmilk is literally grinded oats with water. How is that ultra-transformed?
With added sugar, flavour and occasionally vitamins and micronutrients.
Not saying it’s necessarily bad though
That’s what most plant milks are. Oat milk requires further additions, because it’s comparatively unappetizing as-is, compared to coconut, almond or soy milk.
Some oat milks have oil added to make it thicker, or to make it froth, but there are plenty here in the UK that are just oats and water.
What is an ultra-transformed food and what makes it bad for you? Generally the things added to foods (sugar, salt, preservatives) are what make them less healthy than fresh counterparts. At least here, the soy milk has added salt putting it at the same salt content as milk, and no added sugar, putting it at 8x less sugar than milk. What it does have is added calcium, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin D, and a higher protein content than milk. Simply being processed doesn’t make something unhealthy, the things that are changed in processing it can make something unhealthy. That doesn’t apply here.
Agreed, the term and confusion is likely due to over-simplification from media and researchers.
I thought there were added sugar in those alt-milks, as most I tried tasted so sweet…
You can buy it sweetened or unsweetened here. The sweetened soy milk here has almost the same sugar content as milk but still slightly lower (2.5g/100ml for the soy milk, 2.6g/100ml for the milk)
Nutrition differs for other milk replacements as well, but that’s due to the core ingredient being different (e.g., oats have more sugar than soy).
If you can digest lactose, it’s simply much better for you than sucrose. Most objective health sites I’ve seen consider sugar content to overall be a pro of dairy milk over sweetened plant-based milk, but con over unsweetened plant-based milk.
Unfortunately, I can’t digest lactose, and I believe (never found research) I lose some of that benefit when I add lactase to my milk.
Sucrose has a higher glycemic index than lactose but it doesn’t seem to be that much of a difference. I can’t find any objective sources for lactose being better for you other than it having a lower glycemic index, and how much that really matters especially in the relatively low amounts of sugar in milk and sweetened plant milk seems not clear. I’m quite curious to learn about it, do you have any references?
I can’t find any objective sources for lactose being better for you other than it having a lower glycemic index, and how much that really matters especially in the relatively low amounts of sugar in milk and sweetened plant milk seems not clear
The lower glycemic index is a pretty big deal in a vacuum, in regards to insulin-related issues and appetite-related issues. Which you seem to have already agreed with?
As for “there’s not enough”, dunno. Honestly, nobody is trying to say that nut milk is bad for you (except possibly the cancer risk in soy milk, but I tend to put that in the “unlikely” column alongside cancer risk of cow milk). It’s that milk is better for you, if only slightly so.
And if you note, I said lactose is much better, not dairy milk is always much better (though I think it’s better in almost every way, health-wise). It was in a direct reply to the near-match sugar content from your previous note.
If they taste sweet, at all, they are definitely sweetened with added sugar. One of the biggest cons of plant-based milks is that they are either completely devoid of sweetness, or have lots of sugar and are higher carb than dairy milk.
The sweetened plant milks taste excessively sweet to me and the plant-based ones taste right. It depends a bit on the specific milk though, I think pea milk is pretty devoid of sweetness for example.
Interesting! For some reason, all the unsweetened ones taste horrible to me, like bitter dirt. But drink lactose-free cow milk normally, and the lactase enzyme increases the perceived sweetness by just a tiny bit. I love tofu in its raw form, so I remain shocked that I can’t stand unsweetened soymilk.
You can’t find unsweetened soymilk around me because nobody will buy it. Ditto to a lesser extent in other unsweetened milks. Usually, the unsweetened ones are also the unfortified ones around me, too… which means nutritionally inferior.
One of the advantages to cow milk is that it is probably the lowest carb content for that “sweet enough” milk balance. Unsweetened plant milks are just lacking that, and the plant milks sweetened to compete are too high-carb. But yeah, I wouldn’t call any plant milk ultra-transformed. The term “processed food” is way too large an umbrella for reasoned conversation.
What it does have is added calcium, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin D, and a higher protein content than milk
Per the Mayo Clinic, it’s tough to beat dairy milk for balanced nutrition. These heavily fortified alt-milks aren’t terrible, but the body doesn’t digest those nutrients as well. Doesn’t mean it’ll kill ya. I know people who eat a giant pastry for breakfast every morning, but it’s points against. If the only thing you care about is nutrients and not being dairy, the answer is definitely unsweetened Soy Milk if it’s available where you are.
I’m lactose intolerant, and for years I thought lactaid wouldn’t for for me. The sweetened soymilk I drank definitely contributed to some weight gain back then, but it was hardly the main or only cause.
The phrasing in the Mayo Clinic article is weird to me. The pros and cons outlined in that article (skim milk versus soy milk), skim milk has:
- slightly more protein (8g over 7g)
- potentially easier to absorb calcium
- more sugar in the form of lactase
- less healthy fats
- lactase which most adults cannot process
The conclusion that milk (even skim milk) is better for you than soy milk does not seem self-evident to me. I would rather have less sugar (regardless of whether it’s added or not) and more healthy fats than slightly more protein. There are many good sources of protein but avoiding sugar in your diet enough to stay under the recommended limit is really difficult.
Interesting. From those bullet points, it does seem self-evident to me. But then, those bullet points are not the whole description either.
It’s not just “slightly more protein”, it’s “slightly more of a better protein” (which, admittedly, the article doesn’t dig into). It’s not just calcium that’s easier to absorb. That’s just the topic they were responding to in that line.
The “form of lactose” (not lactase. lactase is the enzyme people like me lack). Lactose is decently healthier than sucrose gram-for-gram, if you can digest it.
“less healthy fats” is actually worded weird here. Soymilk and almond milk has higher fat, but it’s a slightly healthier fat. The fats in cow milk are perfectly fine if kept to under 7% of your calories - and it only accounts for <2% of the calories in the milk. Meaning you can’t drink enough milk for it to be a major reason you’re having too much saturated fat.
Finally, they are comparing soymilk intentionally fortified with nutrients to plain-ol cow milk. And cow milk wins. It’s still fine to have fortified soymilk if you really want. Fortified foods are ok, though their absorption levels are sometimes lower or sometimes uncertain, but that’s just a matter of how much more time we’ve had to study the nutritional effects of milk. It is still slightly better to have dairy milk, and definitely not worse to have dairy milk, if you can.
Ultimately, the article clearly articulates that dairy milk is healthier than plant milks, but plant milks are still ok as long as you know what you’re drinking. Whether you boil it down to those bullet points or read the article, that’s what the article says, and manages to defend.
I can’t speak to health, but here’s some thoughts on the ecological reason.
All the studies (that I have found at least) look at global carbon emissions and land use in production of milk. This is an important distinction.
The US, for example, is the #2 milk producer in the world (arguably #1 if we’re only talking about cow milk). It’s also the #1 beef producer in the world. The US’s livestock methane footprint is barely a blip on the Global Warming Radar (6% of total methane from all sources). There are even ways to reduce the carbon footprint of cow milk further, but it’s important to note we are very much in the range where we could easily take action to fund offsets and make the dairy industry 100% carbon neutral in the US. You may not be from the US, and that’s not the point. The point is that a lot of European countries that consume milk are in the same boat, and countries that are not as efficient as that could be with some regulatory changes and technological improvements.
Flip-side. As others have said, alt-milks are a lot less “ultra-transformed” than you might think. It’s like calling chicken broth “ultra-transformed”. You could make your own oatmilk or almond milk. It’s not hard or “weird”. They’re just oats and water, or nuts and water.
Actually, found this quote about the health of milk. “if we’re looking at like the nutrient density versus cost, cow’s milk is always going to win”. TO BE CLEAR, the expert in this article is saying “plant-based milk is just fine”, and she agrees that some plant-based milks are comparable to cow milk if less balanced. She has a long explanation of “you really need to know what you plan to get out of milk”, pointing out that most plant milks are too low in protein, but that it doesn’t matter if you’re just using it to remove acidity from your coffee… but that for a vegan they’re just fine.
“if we’re looking at like the nutrient density versus cost
the cost is massively subsidized for the benefit of large ag businesses in small states
So we should cut off our nose to spite our face? My point is true in a vacuum, not just true subsidized. That a small number of large corrupt businesses fuck the little guys is not a good reason to kill them all.
As you admit, those subsidies benefit large ag businesses, who then sell their products for the same price that mom-and-pops farms do, pocketing the margins.
The piece that was left out is much of those subsidies are paid in taxes and fees that are charged to… the same industry. Ask any small-town cow or dairy farmer how he/she feels about feed subsidies. That particular subsidy is taxed to the farmer (almost like they do with alcohol) on the first-sale of the cattle/milk. It is one of the largest big ag subsidies, and it is used to punish meat and dairy farmers… and they still can afford to bring milk to your fridge at these prices.
So here’s a deal for you. We both go after big ag together for a less corrupt world. The side-effect is that the cost of dairy might go down.
barely a blip on the Global Warming Radar (6% of total methane from all sources)
6% of all methane is not a blip, are you kidding? There isn’t one single easily solvable source of methane worldwide. There are many smaller sources and most of the larger sources are hard to replace.
we could easily take action to fund offsets and make the dairy industry 100% carbon neutral in the US
Offsets are a scam, and offsetting would require more subsidies or make cow’s milk more expensive. Instead of offsetting something that we can easily replace with something less polluting, we can offset the things that are much harder to replace.
nutrient density versus cost, cow’s milk is always going to win
Is it though? I live in the Netherlands, and in Europe we have really high milk subsidies. As far as I can tell we have essentially no soy milk subsidies. We have the third highest milk consumption as well, with a long history of production and plenty opportunity for efficient production ar scale.
Despite that, home brand skim milk is €0.99/L with a cheaper brand available at €0.85/L versus €0.89/L for home brand (fortified and unsweetened) soy milk.
6% of all methane is not a blip, are you kidding?
No, I’m not kidding. Methane is a moderate contributor, and we are one of the lowest contributors per-calorie, per person, whatever. Also, it would arguably be cheaper to just go carbon neutral with current cattle (which the cattle industry intends to do within 20-30 years) than to retrofit our entire grocery economy and re-educate (force) people away from it. Finally, it’s STILL a band-aid. US’s methane impact is only 20-30% higher than pre-colonial days (due to reduced populations of naturally-occuring animals like buffalo), and a mass-culling of cattle will be “helping out” by us merely having a lower-than-natural methane impact.
Offsets are a scam
In your words “are you kidding?”. But I’m going to explain instead of being shocked. Carbon gasses are a closed system. If I buy a large area of non-arable dead land, keep cows in part of it and coerce a forest out of the other part of, I’ve created a carbon neutral arrangement. Hell, much less natural, I merely need to fund a carbon-sequestering operation to the same amount as the gas production and I’ve fully become carbon neutral. Genuinely carbon neutral. We could hypothetically go full coal if we could find a way to sequester an equal amount of emissions (but unlike meat, that would be a disgusting waste of money and the coal companies have no intention to do it. The meat industry absolutely wants to go carbon neutral, so that vegans can stop trying to make eco claims about them.
nutrient density versus cost…
subsidies
I can’t speak for the Netherlands, so maybe you have it different… In the US, dairy subsidies are generally a bit of a scam but so are most of their detractors. A large percent of farmers never see a penny (or sometimes have to pay in, see next paragraph). The price you see a gallon of milk on the shelf for is likely not going to go up much (if at all) if those subsidies go away. Executive bonuses will be cut.
The biggest scam of them I’m aware of in the US is the feed subsidy that makes up most of the complaints about dairy being subsidized. The fund is paid for in a large part by fees/taxes paid by farms on their meat/dairy production (people often miss that many farm subsidies are actually paid by farm-specific taxes), but only a few large cattle operations see any of them… and many of those large cattle operations have loopholes to themselves avoid the feed subsidy taxes.
Despite that, home brand skim milk is €0.99/L with a cheaper brand available at €0.85/L versus €0.89/L for home brand (fortified and unsweetened) soy milk.
Nice. I can’t get either for less than twice that in the US.
Dairy has been implicated in everything from heart disease to certain cancers, osteoporosis (ironically the more dairy you consume, the more bone loss you get), autoimmune diseases, and even reproductive disorders. They also contain casomorphins, which are addictive opioids.
As far as plant foods go, plant milks are not particularly beneficial, other than being a convenient choice for suring up a micronutrient deficiency or two that vegans might be missing (most commercial plant milks are fortified with multivitamins). It’s more that dairy is so bad that virtually anything is a better choice.
https://nutritionstudies.org/smart-parents-guide-to-why-kids-should-not-have-dairy-products/
https://nutritionstudies.org/dairy-consumption-weight-loss-claims/
Full disclosure, the site you linked offers a non-accredited certificate in vegan nutrition. The “expert” they cite in the crazier claims in your links is the founder and president of the group, and those claims are generally either rejected, or merely “not accepted due to lack of evidence” by the scientific community.
Honestly, to a neutral observer, if you took the vegan propaganda off the site and stripped it to text files, both of them still read like bogey-man anti-meat articles. Between the un-cited claims that contradict the studies I find in a google search and the broad-stroke accusations, I wouldn’t be able to take it seriously in a vacuum.
I’d go into details, but if you read the articles it will be obvious to you. If it’s not, hit me up and I’ll point out just a few of the parts of those two gossip-mag articles are the worst offenders to scientific thinking.
One true statement comes out of it. Drinking cow milk does not seem to be a contributor for weight gain OR loss in a vacuum.
That “non-accredited” education program is eligible for a variety of continuing education credits.
That orgs assertion that dairy doesn’t cause cancer is suspicious at best when there is evidence of cancer risk, multiple cancers, and when that same organization appears to be largely an industry frontend.
Lastly I trust wfpb dietary patterns because they work so well, any person can find out for them self. Join any active wfpb community and you see people routinely shedding lbs, lowering their blood cholesterol levels to miraculous lows, managing their autoimmune symptoms or even in some cases to the point of remission, and overall feeling better and having more energy than they have in their entire lives.
People who follow more animal-centric diets on the other hand, routinely die faster and more miserably.
That “non-accredited” education program is eligible for a variety of continuing education credits.
So? I deal with con-ed regularly at a professional level. That’s NOT a big win. You can get con-ed in some healthcare fields going to vegas and sitting through a speech about how to raise wages in the field.
That orgs assertion that dairy doesn’t cause cancer is suspicious at best when there is evidence of cancer risk, multiple cancers, and when that same organization appears to be largely an industry frontend.
First, “evidence of cancer risk” is why you can’t buy a cup of coffee in California without a cancer warning. That is a very specific term that means “we have not shown that it causes cancer”. One of your links is a statistical analysis that admits only to controlling for soy, in over 52,000 people. The other took a bunch of pubmed studies and found very slight correlation with prostate cancer risk, with a “may increase” conclusion.
None of your links are “causes cancer” or even “likely to cause cancer”. They’re about as strong as the “soy causes cancer” or “artificial sweeteners cause cancer” or (yes) “coffee causes cancer”.
Second… I have NEVER heard anyone call Cancer Research UK a shill charity. They are quite literally a cancer research charity that is, yes, backed by companies that treat cancer and save lives. I mean, how exactly are you disputing them over that?
People who follow more animal-centric diets on the other hand, routinely die faster and more miserably.
Ahhh yes. “Plant Chompers”, a propaganda vid. You just HAD to change this from a dairy vs plant milk health discussion and go full Vegan Or Die. Here’s my equally controversial anti-vegan answers:
Eating less Meat won’t save the Planet. Here’s Why
Vegan diets don’t work. Here’s why
You won’t agree. I don’t care. You just linked me to “Plant Chompers” as part of your argument.
also, milk is just bad for most people. some people need the high fat and protein content, but most of us, including children, would be much better off not drinking milk at all.
Low fat milk has existed for decades, plus doesn’t modern research support the idea that carbs are worse than fat? And I don’t understand why protein is bad, unless you are eating only protein.
Milk is actually very good for children, just because it replaces other liquids that are worse and it has calcium and vitamin D.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/dont-forget-dairy-part-childs-healthy-diet/
It sounds like you just don’t like natural milk.
First of all, I fucking love milk, you do not fucking know me.
Second of all, you really want to get in a battle of links?? https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/dairy-health-food-or-health-risk-2019012515849
For health? Probably nothing definitive either way. The article is mainly just arguing the ecological implications being better for us
Another misleading title then.
I don’t see why dairy should be subsidized but some plant milks aren’t exactly environmentally friendly either. The best can be said is they’re better than dairy, assuming the same land could be used for both. But they can be devastating in their own right. E.g. to grow 1 almond (i.e. one kernel) takes over 3 gallons of water. Other crops used to make milk like oats have lower water consumption.
The almond example is frequently brought up, but this is still half of what dairy milk requires, without taking into account the difference in land use too
Like I said better than dairy but still awful. Moreso because almonds are grown in places like California where water is being depleted.
You’re referring to old news buddy, https://www.drought.gov/states/california
It’s better for the environment for us just to die off…
There must be a middle point though
the sources of the water are vastly different though. the totals for dairy milk include the rainwater that grows the grass but otherwise is inaccessible to humans. the almonds, by contrast, are irrigated. not to mention the potable water that goes directly into the final product.
You think most dairy cows are fed on naturally watered grass?
I don’t know exactly what dairy cows are fed, but I do know that most cows eat mostly grass for most of their lives.
Most cows where? In the wild, sure. The meat we eat? Hell no
you don’t know what you’re talking about.
they do start eating grass but most cows end up getting fed stuff like corn, grains, alfafa etc.
They can be, in NZ there are is a huge amount of land that has been converted to dairy through massive irrigation schemes which has caused massive problems for the rivers that flow naturally through these places… I imagine there are other places in the world used for dairy that wouldn’t be suitable if not for irrigation?
Here’s why dairy should be subsidized. Because all farms should be subsidized. Most of our food production needs to be subsidized to prevent bad economic shifts creating financial hardships that sink farms and lead to a food shortfall.
I mean, here’s a microcosm for you. Some seafood verticals had price swings recently, and when the swings hit bottom, it was actually cheaper to keep the boat in port than go out for a trip. If the swings remained or kept going down, it would have tanked some of the smaller fishing companies. So when that swing would end, the shortage of production would have the opposite effect - dramatically higher fish prices. Yes, that’ll get people back into the industry… bigger businesses that will carefully milk the increased prices instead of simply increasing food availability.
Now, the way dairy and and beef farms are subsidized is a problem right now. Even most farmers are against it. Most dairy farms don’t get a penny (and in fact, PAY IN. I’m not kidding), while the larger factory farms get their feed fully paid for and large scale production subsidized.
That does mean you’re probably not actually seeing a penny of price savings from the subsidies. People tend to forget that when blaming subsidies in the price of milk vs plant-milk.
The environmental problems of growing plants isn’t because of the individual plants, it’s because the farming practices used are bad (conventional industrial ag, synthetic fertilizers, monoculture, etc). In a well designed polycultural system, almonds can have their place too. But there is no way to make animal ag sustainable, and since that has both deep ethical and health problems as well - why bother?
