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.
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).
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? www.growinganything.com/…/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.
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.
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.
Bring that complain to the producers of “oat milk” and similar products. Producing a gallon of oat milk has ingredience costs of about 20ct. You know what you are paying for it in the supermarket. Go figure who gets rich on people who are looking for “alternatives”.
Producing a gallon of oat milk has ingredience costs of about 20ct
To them, in bulk. Making your own oat milk is about an 80% savings over retail cost (about $0.50-$1/gallon), about the same as the money saved making your own yogurt.
This isn’t about rich people getting richer specifically on plant-based milks. There’s just several levels of markups. Oat Milk company passes on a markup on the oats they purchase, then they pass another markup to the wholesaler. Then the wholesaler passes a markup to the retailer. Than the retailer passes a markup that averages around 30% but generally goes from 15% to 75%, usually larger markups for products that sell slower to justify their investment in them.
This is arguably why capitalism is failing us, but nothing is unique about it with Oat Milk. Right now, milk cost of production is high (enough that farmers are losing money), but that’s temporary and wholesalers have the leverage to pay prices that are below cost (which is why farmers are losing money). Then, there’s one fewer step in markups.
So let’s say your 20c figure is right (it’s not. Oat prices are fairly high right now). They’re paying more like 30-40c for the ingredients, then they sell it to wholesalers for over $1/gal (which is arguably justified, which is already in range of the $1.50/gal farm milk costs hit. Then, yes, wholesalers and retailers each mark oat milk up a bit higher because it moves slower.
First: The 20ct figure is quite on the spot, actually, your recipe uses far more oat than the industry uses, and the 20ct figure even includes vegetable oil (to make ich more creamy) and chemicals (to bind fat and water based ingredients). On the other hand, I wonder where you $1/gal comes from - that would be dirt cheap in comparison to the prices I see in the supermarket.
First: The 20ct figure is quite on the spot, actually, your recipe uses far more oat than the industry uses
Fair enough, though I cannot seem to find solid figures anywhere. Obviously it’s cheaper to make than almond milk, and they retail around the same… But I still dug into number using the $0.20 figure.
On the other hand, I wonder where you $1/gal comes from - that would be dirt cheap in comparison to the prices I see in the supermarket.
That came from the cost per gallon of oat milk being paid by the wholesalers to the manufacturers. Often, supermarkets and other retailers do not purchase directly from manufacturer, but from a wholesaler or distributor. Note also the $1.50 figure farmers are paid by wholesalers. I live in a region with dairy farms and we’re paying 3-4x that number by the time it hits the grocery store register.
I see soy/oat/rice milk as their own thing, instead of a direct cow milk substitute/replacement.
There are many, many dairy product that are important as food or ingredients to other foods such as butter, yogurt, ice cream, cream, infant formula, and various cheeses that cannot be replaced directly by plant based alternatives.
And also, if you don’t like milk, try getting one of those unhomoginized milk in glass bottles that’s usually directly bottled by local farms. You have to shake a lot to get the cream on top dissolved again, but there is nothing that’s quite like an ice cold cup of that.
Like an estimated two-thirds of the world’s population, I don’t digest lactose well,
That number, like all world population numbers is heavily skewed by just how many people are in China. The mutation that causes adults to continue to produce the enzyme to digest lactose is less common among those of Asian descent.
(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.)
…and there are medieval European recipes that call for almond milk, and tofu is made from soy milk and there are written sources referencing it roughly a thousand years old. You’re right, none of these are really new on the scene, aside from maybe oat milk.
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.
I feel like your first paragraph completely ignored this aspect. You squeeze milk out of a cow. Nut and bean milks require grinding the stuff up with a lot of water, mixing it thoroughly, then squeezing the wet pulp through a fine filter (for small batches something like a cheesecloth) to separate the milk from the pulp.
Commercial oat milk requires further processing, because just pulping, mixing with water and straining oats does not produce anything appetizing at all.
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.
That’s not a bad assumption on their part - people who are deeply concerned with the emissions involved in producing their food tend to be richer, in no small part because poor folks are going to put price first, because they have to think about how food fits into their budget more.
Also cheese - you can’t make cheese from plant milks. Well, you can try, but that’s basically how you make tofu, and performing a similar process on other plant milks creates something closer to tofu than cheese.
Hey, just so you know, that whole lactose intolerance is just hundreds of years of the west drinking milk a lot.
And you can make cheese without milk. Obviously with a different process but Gouda is one of the cheeses that is already replicated very well.
Oat milk does not need much processing btw. You can make really good tasting oatmilk at home.
Hey, just so you know, that whole lactose intolerance is just hundreds of years of the west drinking milk a lot.
Like any genetic trait, frequency of lactose tolerance is entirely about selection pressures on your ancestors. Being able to tolerate milk to use it to supplement the diet was more important for survival in Europe and Africa than elsewhere historically. The more your ancestors needed to lean on milk for calories, the more likely the ones who couldn’t didn’t make it, the more common that mutation is in later generations. Same reason why sickle cell is much more common in black folks - having the sickle cell trait also confers a degree of malaria resistance and malaria is historically a bigger pressure on African populations than on many other regions.
Oat milk does not need much processing btw. You can make really good tasting oatmilk at home.
If you’re really careful about how long it’s in the water, how much it’s been blended, and/or you add some amylase to make it less slimy, maybe some nuts to make it creamier, and probably sweeten it a bit. It’s still more involved than “blend nuts with water, pour in filter, press”, which in turn is more involved than “pull on nipple.”
I’m explicitly not hating on plant milks here, but they aren’t a fill in in all applications and for basically any case where the chemical or physical properties of milk are relevant in which case they often need some extra steps involved and even that is assuming the flavor is OK (which depends on the context they are being used in). For example, I find that coconut milk works really well in a lot of dishes from or inspired by food from east Asia or India, but I wouldn’t try having it over a bowl of cereal, and I suspect it wouldn’t work great in coffee or tea either (though I haven’t tried and I find almond milk is pretty OK in coffee but definitely not as good as actual dairy in a strong black tea).
Subsidies have devalued food and the value of farms and farm labor. If they went away, meat and dairy consumption would fall simply because we would have to pay the true dollar value of producing those foods.
I don’t agree with the environmental assessment in this article though. The quantity produced might be the same, but a cup of cow milk has a lot more calories and micronutrients than plant milk. Sure, many people don’t have the genetics to digest it, but there’s a reason mammals drink milk until they can eat other foods. They wouldn’t survive long sipping puddles of soy water.
Even after adjusting for calories, the environmental impact of animal agriculture is insane. Meat is obviously waaaay worse than dairy, but dairy still uses way more land and water, with a disproportionate environmental impact on any measure you can think of.
It’s wild how many people think they know so much about this topic and then comment something nonsensical on this post lol
What is your expertise in agriculture or nutrition? This comment and some of your others in this thread make assumptions that suggest you may not know as much as you think about the topic.
Not hard to do basic research on climate change. But of course, your comments on this thread make it clear that some people do in fact struggle with finding basic facts.
I’m sorry that you’re bitter about all the downvotes on your misinformed comments
Yes it’s not hard to read a few articles and feel informed. I happen to have been studying these issues for nearly 10 years, do work with local agriculture organizations, and know dozens of farmers. These climate estimates are based on mathematical models, which are based on other models all of which make major assumptions. Raising animals for meat and dairy in natural conditions and on the right scale can be much more environmentally sustainable than growing beans and eating vegan. Factory farming level, I agree with you for the most part.
If you earnestly want to influence people to consider your beliefs, belittling is a sure way to do the opposite. I used to be vegan and buy into the plant-based narrative. If you want to understand these issues more I suggest meeting some farmers, if possible working on a farm, and in general understanding how exactly food (or milk) makes it into your fridge. Thanks for replying to my question.
Yes, but factory farming is a very new phenomenon. Painting any animal ag as an environmental problem distracts us from the fact that the entire system doesn’t have to be set up the way it is. For the record I am about as anti-big ag and factory farming as one can be. My issue with all of this is that we can argue about why system B is better than system A, but not even consider the possibility of system C.
Every vegan I’ve known has ended up the same way, their body starts to react negatively to the diet, they get sick, doctors tell them that they are low on some essential vitamin, they eat meat, it’s the most delicious thing that they had an ages, they realize the entire vegan movement is a scam and a death cult.
The only people I know who don’t have this happen to them, are rich celebrities who can afford all of these supplements.
Plant milk also tastes absolutely disgusting in my opinion and comes nowhere near to actual milk from a cow. The moment when I can’t taste the difference is the point where I’ll switch over, but so far nothing has impressed me.
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
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.
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?
I’m curious what makes milk bad for you. Could someone explain this? I understand why it is bad for the climate, but not why it’s bad for human health provided you can digest lactose properly.
It’s a similar issue to why gluten became a fad diet, once the public zeitgeist got the idea that some people can’t 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.
It isn’t healthy in the same way candy bars with added vitamins aren’t healthy: it’s a bunch of sugar and fat you don’t need with some protein and calcium somewhere in there.
But maybe you want it anyways, because it’s yummy.
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 “health” drink? Not enough people seem to ask themselves this.
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 “plant-based nutrition” sites that disagree with the Mayo Clinic and various cancer research organizations, it definitely gets problematic.
Why is milk promoted so very hard as a “health” drink?
Per the Mayo Clinic: “it’s tough to beat dairy milk for balanced nutrition”. That’s why. With a few caveats (which I cover below), it is one of the most perfectly balanced foods a human can consume.
Here’s a question I don’t 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 “why does EVERYONE say this is so healthy?!?” is similar to “there’s no evidence of this person committing a crime, so it must be a massive cover-up”… Or maybe EVERYONE says it is so healthy because it is so healthy.
Not saying it’s 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 don’t listen to them, and equally don’t listen to the militant vegans. Listen to medical and nutrition experts who don’t have some sort of agenda.
The same reason why people try to tell you that vaccines are bullshit but if you buy their essential oils you’ll live forever. People try to discredit the mainstream and proven treatment in favor of quackery that they happen to sell at an inflated price.
Yeah, but what are they going to sell? Also, I don’t 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.
Milk is “vaccines” in this situation. People are telling us milk is bullshit, but if we buy into veganism, we’ll 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 it’s 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.
While there are saturated fats in cow milk, it’s a low enough percent of calories that you can drink any amount of milk and still never cross the “healthy to unhealthy” line.
Also, be wary of people quoting nutritionstudies.org as it’s 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 “nobody needs to drink milk”, 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 “may possibly cause cancer” as hundreds of things you do every day (to add, there’s similar evidence that dairy “may possibly” prevent some forms of cancer). Milk is notknown to cause or worsen cancer, nor even **likely to ** cause/worsen cancer, from a scientific point of view. More frustrating, milk’s nutritional balance and high protein makes it something doctors generally encourage cancer patients to drink.
i switched to milk from local cows that are happy and grass fed… and damn does it taste better. like measurably better, in everything i use it for. grocery store milk now tastes strange to me. it’s more expensive, but who really needs to use that much milk? i don’t drink it casually, just in baking, etc.
non dairy milks are a scam to sell water to rich city people.
Are there actual studies showing that plant-based alternatives are better for health (for 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…
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.
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 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.
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 (and while I doubted elsewhere, I don’t see how adding lactase enzyme to it would make it any less healthy).
“less healthy fats” is actually worded weird here. Soymilk and almond milk has higher fat (which I didn’t think they had higher fact), 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… (OR fortify cow milk to get the best of both worlds.) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The nutritional value is debatable, but the environmental impact isn’t even close. Cows are a massive problem for the environment. The amount of water they use, the food they consume (the water that we need for that food too), it’s an insane comparison.
Unless you’re a raw milk TB-chaser type the milk you drink is probably processed too. Being processed doesn’t make something inherently worse, and “no nutritional value” is a daft claim. OK if you consume milk as your only source of protein or fat, you probably want to choose your milk substitute tailored to whichever the rest of your diet is deficient in, but better or worse for us is a fairly arbitrary concept.
Livestock for dairy production are unarguably bad for the planet though.
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.
Milk, cream, cheese (most of what milk ends up as), and butter, are all delicious, despite the corrupting economic and political arrangements. Is the quantity consumed appropriate? The US diet is demanding.
The article sort of glosses over the input required to grow plant-based milk products effectively at scale, and the fact they don’t constantly produce like cows, the ways the crops can be destroyed and what’s required to protect them. A byproduct of dairy farming is manure, often used to fertilize vegetable crops, but the nitrogen fixation used in synthetic fertilizers requires a lot of energy input as well.
The article doesn’t really differentiate what alt-milks are being grown at scale or factor in locations where this is possible. Certainly oats, soy, and coconut are grown at scale (palm plantations are their own environmental disaster). Nut-milk from almonds or nutsedge aren’t really mentioned. The “insanely less resource intensive” is basically because plants don’t output constantly like cows, so they are absolutely less resource intensive simply because they only produce once a season all at once.
Add comment