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
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.
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.
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.
I’m beginning to notice a handful of company ties to “make perfect the enemy of good” takes like this.
It’s enough to drive one to schizophrenia. Everything is a hidden message
C̵̡̢̡̢̙̰̻̘̠͎̟͖̯̉͐̉̊̓̎̽͂͆̈̄̔͊͊̃̔̈́́̂̑̿̐̈́͑͛̆̾̈́́͘̚̕͝͝ơ̴̢̧̨̢̟̳̜͙̝͚̟̞͖̞̲͙͍̠͎̞̫͙̮̦̥̯̹̟̦̘̮̖͛͋̏̂̈́̽̓͊͂̃̀̒́͒̏͛̓̐̅́̽͛̇͆̀̽̋͋̋̈́̍́̓͑̚̕͝ͅn̸̡̧̨̛̛̛͍̺̤͎̮͕̟͇̞̙̞̯̤̭̠̥̰̹͍̮͍͙̫̮͉̫̻͖̜̭̦̱͚͎͖͖͓̹̽͛̊̂̓̿̄̏̊̀̀͌̓̽̏͂̒̂̌̄̄̀̊̆̏͑̈́̊̊͌͒͗̀̎̈́̚̕͝͝͠s̴̡͔̗͖̝͖̫̩̲̗̪̤̯̳̼̲̼̈́́̅̇̿̀̎͗́͗͒̀̿̌̎͐͛̆͗͆̿̓̈͗͌̌͒͒́̚̕̚̚͝ṵ̸̢̥̭͎͍̲̟͍̹͙̱̦̤̮̜̖͕̪̱̼̞̜̖̹̥̜͍̝̑̄̆̍̉͒̍̌̅̏̌̊̇͑̄̂̇͌́̿̈́̾͂̏̒͛̐̐̉̏̕̕̚̚͜͜͝͠͝͝ͅͅͅm̵̡̡̨̻̱̹̙̭͚͔̣̘͎̬̖̝̲͈̦̱͓̤̤̲̲̫̫̩͔̮̻̂͋̄̀͐̀̔̿̊̾̋͐̃͆̕̕͜ͅe̸̢̡͇̤͔͈̮̥͓̙͓̻͙̹̦͔̼͔͛̉́̇ͅͅ
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.
Granted, tobacco is far worse than dairy in its health outcomes, but imagine if big tobacco had somehow managed to get schools and government agencies to push their product onto children as a “health” product. Dairy is much like that.
Really? I’ve been substituting tobacco for milk in my morning cereal every day, it’s been great to get away from dairy, finally.
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.
I feel like trying to compare a water intensive crop grown in a place known for drought to crops that can be grown in many places where water is far more readily available is being a bit disingenuous. You’re not comparing apples to apples.
I mean, you could say that we shouldn’t be wasting resources on animal agriculture anywhere, but especially in the same places that don’t have enough water for crops.
Feeding food and giving water to other “food” will always be far less efficient than just providing a fraction of that water to plant-based foods. Animal agriculture is a waste.
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…
I know you are joking but with how dairy lobbies get subsidies from the gov they kind of are making their own demand.
The propaganda for milk (that’s still going) certainly had a big role to play.
I cannot help but be reminded of the games that Big Tobacco (and Big Fossil) played pre-90s, all through the 90s, most mostly lost. It used to be “what are you non-smokers complaining about? It’s not that bad, etc…” pre-90s. Then, finally most indoor smoking got banned, even in bars. Then the fight moved to “but second hand smoke is not that bad, etc…”
Used to be there were tons of smokers in the United States. Now there are far less. I imagine dairy will go through a similar cycle…with the same efforts to distract and distort - even with a crisis of many related chronic diseases - see the “but almonds use so much water!” nonsense that is almost surely an industry placement.
For another comparison to tobacco, I had many, many family members that worked in health care. Most places in health care allowed smoking, nearly everywhere, at one point. If you see what constitutes “food” and “nutrition” in hospitals, it is easy to draw comparisons. It is almost like they could not care less if you get sick and stay sick, since there is no money in prevention.
Idk if it’s delicious. It’s good. Baileys is delicious. Hot chocolate is delicious. A cold glass of milk? Can’t say that craving comes up for me all that often.