Like an estimated two-thirds of the worldā€™s population, I donā€™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 didnā€™t have to askā€”or pay extraā€”for 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, arenā€™t just good for the lactose intolerant: Theyā€™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 milkā€”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, theyā€™re often more expensive. Walk into any Starbucks, and youā€™ll likely pay around 70 cents extra for nondairy options.

. Dairyā€™s affordability edge, explains MarĆ­a Mascaraque, an analyst at market research firm Euromonitor International, relies on the industryā€™s ability to produce ā€œat 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, canā€™t beat those economies of scale. (Globally, alt-milks arenā€™t new on the sceneā€”coconut milk is even mentioned in the Sanskrit epic Mahābhārata, which is thousands of years old.)

What else contributes to cow milkā€™s dominance? Dairy farmers are ā€œpolitical favorites,ā€ says Daniel Sumner, a University of California, Davis, agricultural economist. In addition to support like the ā€œDairy Checkoff,ā€ a joint government-industry program to promote milk products (including the ā€œGot Milk?ā€ campaign), theyā€™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 guidelinesā€”and why it has featured content, such as a 2013 article by thenā€“Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, trumpeting the dairy industry as ā€œleading the way in sustainable innovation.ā€

But the USDA doesnā€™t directly support plant-based milk. It does subsidize some alt-milk ingredientsā€”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 ā€œstrategy for growth is advertisement and promotion and publicity,ā€ which isnā€™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. ā€œMarket-level conditions allow us to move more quicklyā€ than other companies, a spokesperson for the coffee giant told me, but didnā€™t say if or when the price drop would happen elsewhere.

In the United States, meanwhile, itā€™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 ā€œprice isnā€™t the main thingā€ for their buyersā€”as long as enough privileged consumers will pay up, alt-milk can fill a premium niche. But itā€™s going to take a bigger market than that to make real progress in curbing emissions from food.

  • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    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 ā€˜hard truthā€™ is simply because itā€™s the way isā€¦a complete circle, your logic on that one.

    Youā€™re getting dragged by others because you opened with an objective claim that milk tastes better, which is a subjective opinion. Youā€™re now pivoting to argue that cow milk is objectively better because itā€™s more popular? Taylor Swift isnā€™t the best musician because sheā€™s popular. Because ā€œbestā€ is incredibly complex. Best guitarist? Composer? Singer? Whatā€™s best of any of those categories, anyway? We gotta ask Phaedrus, I suppose.

    If youā€™re trying to argue that cow milk is the ā€œbestā€: Cow milk is really good at getting protein and other minerals/vitamins to folks. Really good. Itā€™s 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. Iā€™m not some anti-milk crusader.

    Dairy production, however, is really energy- and space-intensive compared to some alternatives. Thereā€™s a tradeoff to be thought carefully about, and it deserves more than ā€œcow milk is popular therefore itā€™s the bestā€. Unless youā€™re just trying to say that cow milk is popular because cow milk is popular (which no one was arguing?). If thatā€™s the case, see my first reply. Circularity complete.

    • thantik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Iā€™m not arguing cow milk is popular because cow milk is popular. Iā€™m arguing that itā€™s 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 itā€™s clearly not.

      Subsidies happen because they want to keep the prices low, because itā€™s a popular food item. The majority have chosen it, so that makes it the market leader. They didnā€™t 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 itā€™s the best. Itā€™s 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.