Like an estimated two-thirds of the worldās population, I donāt 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 didnāt have to askāor pay extraāfor a milk alternative. Since 2022, the once Oakland-based, now NestlĆ©-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, arenāt just good for the lactose intolerant: Theyāre 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 milkāfour 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, theyāre often more expensive. Walk into any Starbucks, and youāll likely pay around 70 cents extra for nondairy options.
. Dairyās affordability edge, explains MarĆa Mascaraque, an analyst at market research firm Euromonitor International, relies on the industryās ability to produce āat larger volumes, which drives down the cost per carton.ā American demand for milk alternatives, though expected to grow by 10 percent a year through 2030, canāt beat those economies of scale. (Globally, alt-milks arenāt new on the sceneācoconut milk is even mentioned in the Sanskrit epic MahÄbhÄrata, which is thousands of years old.)
What else contributes to cow milkās dominance? Dairy farmers are āpolitical favorites,ā says Daniel Sumner, a University of California, Davis, agricultural economist. In addition to support like the āDairy Checkoff,ā a joint government-industry program to promote milk products (including the āGot Milk?ā campaign), theyāve 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 guidelinesāand why it has featured content, such as a 2013 article by thenāAgriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, trumpeting the dairy industry as āleading the way in sustainable innovation.ā
But the USDA doesnāt directly support plant-based milk. It does subsidize some alt-milk ingredientsāsoybean 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 āstrategy for growth is advertisement and promotion and publicity,ā which isnāt 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. āMarket-level conditions allow us to move more quicklyā than other companies, a spokesperson for the coffee giant told me, but didnāt say if or when the price drop would happen elsewhere.
In the United States, meanwhile, itās 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 āprice isnāt the main thingā for their buyersāas long as enough privileged consumers will pay up, alt-milk can fill a premium niche. But itās going to take a bigger market than that to make real progress in curbing emissions from food.
Sometimes you have to tell children twice before they get it through their thick skulls.
Due to freedom of selection, nowhere in the world has a alt-milk market which surpasses that of traditional milk. Itās because people prefer traditional milk, and not plant-paste. Iām sorry that Iām having to repeat myself for you to understand, but hey - you can lead a horse to water, you canāt make it drink.
If plant/alt milk were more popular, youād see places where it supplanted traditional milk, but you donāt see that literally anywhere in the world. So, itās a hard truth. One thatā¦due to peopleās confirmation bias, they donāt seem to be willing to accept.
There is freedom of selection, but itās not a free market. Weāre literally discussing that in this post. Milk is substantially cheaper due to subsidies. Many people canāt afford to simply purchase the more expensive one when a cheaper version is available. However, in a free market, it wouldnāt be that much cheaper.
New products take time to surpass old products. You have false advertising and bad information floating around as truth and people think milk needs to be had to be healthy. It was so heavily advertised to boomers through millennials and even some of gen z, that Iām not surprised many have fallen for the marketing like you so heavily did.
Do you have me confused with someone who has wronged you?
My only response so far was a (admittedly cheeky) reply to your comment about how your reasoning for something being a āhard truthā is simply because itās the way isā¦a complete circle, your logic on that one.
Youāre getting dragged by others because you opened with an objective claim that milk tastes better, which is a subjective opinion. Youāre now pivoting to argue that cow milk is objectively better because itās more popular? Taylor Swift isnāt the best musician because sheās popular. Because ābestā is incredibly complex. Best guitarist? Composer? Singer? Whatās best of any of those categories, anyway? We gotta ask Phaedrus, I suppose.
If youāre trying to argue that cow milk is the ābestā: Cow milk is really good at getting protein and other minerals/vitamins to folks. Really good. Itās got a lot of properties that make it really useful in some recipes I love. Also I eat a lot of dairy ice cream, and yogurt. Iām not some anti-milk crusader.
Dairy production, however, is really energy- and space-intensive compared to some alternatives. Thereās a tradeoff to be thought carefully about, and it deserves more than ācow milk is popular therefore itās the bestā. Unless youāre just trying to say that cow milk is popular because cow milk is popular (which no one was arguing?). If thatās the case, see my first reply. Circularity complete.
Iām not arguing cow milk is popular because cow milk is popular. Iām arguing that itās popular because it is subjectively better than the alternatives.
Kind of like how dogs are 4 legged animals, but not all 4 legged animals are dogs. Your argument to that is claiming circular reasoning, but itās clearly not.
Subsidies happen because they want to keep the prices low, because itās a popular food item. The majority have chosen it, so that makes it the market leader. They didnāt choose it because it was a popular choice. And so inherently that makes it what it is. The defacto best option. Sometimes you have to paint with a broad brush when talking about broad topics.
Fact is, they lack a lot of the subjective properties that make milk as useful as it is. Milk is popular because itās the best. Itās not the best because of its popularity. The popularity is simply an easy to understand byproduct of its superiority.
How about actually learning what circular reasoning is.
Cool, the nuance here I can get on board with. Thanks for expanding.