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.
Iām curious what makes milk bad for you. Could someone explain this? I understand why it is bad for the climate, but not why itās bad for human health provided you can digest lactose properly.
Itās a similar issue to why gluten became a fad diet, once the public zeitgeist got the idea that some people canāt digest gluten properly people started thinking that maybe no one should eat gluten and the hucksters followed suit.
Do not believe any scammer who tries to tell you that milk is somehow not healthy or that the dairy industry is some kind of scam trying to poison America.
Why would the people pointing out how unhealthy milk is be the ones that are the scammers? What would they have to gain from it? Why is milk promoted so very hard as a āhealthā drink? Not enough people seem to ask themselves this.
The same reason why people try to tell you that vaccines are bullshit but if you buy their essential oils youāll live forever. People try to discredit the mainstream and proven treatment in favor of quackery that they happen to sell at an inflated price.
Milk is āvaccinesā in this situation. People are telling us milk is bullshit, but if we buy into veganism, weāll live forever. While the Mayo Clinic reminds people that plant based milks are just generally not as healthy as dairy milk. Soymilk comes close if it is both fortified and unsweetened, but itās still second-best. Good enough for someone who is already a vegan, but definitely not good enough for someone to stop drinking milk if they already do.
Yeah, but what are they going to sell? Also, I donāt think milk as a health drink is really all that mainstream any more, or becoming increasingly less so over time. I think people are still sputtering along on what they might have been told ages ago, or what they were told by the dairy council.
Cum
Militant Veganism involves the desire to convince people to stop eating animal products at all costs. Just look at nutritionstudies.org. When you have a bunch āplant-based nutritionā sites that disagree with the Mayo Clinic and various cancer research organizations, it definitely gets problematic.
Per the Mayo Clinic: āitās tough to beat dairy milk for balanced nutritionā. Thatās why. With a few caveats (which I cover below), it is one of the most perfectly balanced foods a human can consume.
Hereās a question I donāt think enough people seem to ask. When cancer patients are encouraged to drink milk, and study after study fails to find a strong correlative or causal link between milk and cancer, why are so many vegan sites claiming it causes or worsens cancer. If I were a cancer patient, should I be trusting nutritionstudies.org and some vegan redditors/lemmings more than, say, Cancer Research UK? Or the Australia Cancer Council?
The problem is that āwhy does EVERYONE say this is so healthy?!?ā is similar to āthereās no evidence of this person committing a crime, so it must be a massive cover-upāā¦ Or maybe EVERYONE says it is so healthy because it is so healthy.
Not saying itās a magical wonderdrink. Drinking calories is still an obesity risk. And people with lactose intolerance need to be careful or have a lactase enzyme with their milk. Of course the dairy industry wants you to drink 5000 glasses of milk per day. So donāt listen to them, and equally donāt listen to the militant vegans. Listen to medical and nutrition experts who donāt have some sort of agenda.
It isnāt healthy in the same way candy bars with added vitamins arenāt healthy: itās a bunch of sugar and fat you donāt need with some protein and calcium somewhere in there.
But maybe you want it anyways, because itās yummy.
Itās not bad for human health at all. Bullshit myths pushed on social media.
Well it is high in fat and calories, itās totally fine in moderation.
Thereās a lot of cholesterol in cows milk for a start.
Dietary cholesterol isnāt unhealthy
Thatās what big dairy wants you to think
Dietary cholesterol is bad.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-eat-as-little-dietary-cholesterol-as-possible/
In moderation
If you eat 20 eggs for lunch every day, you might have an issue.
Itās not. The Mayo Clinic clearly states that milk is healthier than plant milks. Fortified soymilk is their second-best.
While there are saturated fats in cow milk, itās a low enough percent of calories that you can drink any amount of milk and still never cross the āhealthy to unhealthyā line.
Also, be wary of people quoting nutritionstudies.org as itās a vegan propaganda mill with a founder that likes to make claims that are either unsubstantiated or rejected by medical experts and nutritionists in general. Using one of the cited references from that site ānobody needs to drink milkā, he claims that casein causes tumor growth. There is a weak correlation between casein intake and tumor growth that puts it in the same category of āmay possibly cause cancerā as hundreds of things you do every day (to add, thereās similar evidence that dairy āmay possiblyā prevent some forms of cancer). Milk is not known to cause or worsen cancer, nor even **likely to ** cause/worsen cancer, from a scientific point of view. More frustrating, milkās nutritional balance and high protein makes it something doctors generally encourage cancer patients to drink.
Thereās a lot that makes milk bad.
https://nutritionstudies.org/dairy-consumption-weight-loss-claims/
https://nutritionstudies.org/no-body-needs-milk/
Saturated fats, hormones, antibiotics, bacteria (only if consumed raw)
Consuming over 1.25 liters of milk a day increases the risk of prostate cancer (however also decreases risk of colon cancer)
Itās also not only bad for the climate but also for the cows who have to be impregnated and giving birth before there is any milk