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.
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...
Well oatmilk is literally grinded oats with water. How is that ultra-transformed?
With added sugar, flavour and occasionally vitamins and micronutrients.
Not saying it's necessarily bad though
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.
Some oat milks have oil added to make it thicker, or to make it froth, but there are plenty here in the UK that are just oats and water.
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.
Agreed, the term and confusion is likely due to over-simplification from media and researchers.
I thought there were added sugar in those alt-milks, as most I tried tasted so sweet...
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?
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.
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'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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nice. I can't get either for less than twice that in the US.
the cost is massively subsidized for the benefit of large ag businesses in small states
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.
For health? Probably nothing definitive either way. The article is mainly just arguing the ecological implications being better for us
Another misleading title then.
Dairy has been implicated in everything from heart disease to certain cancers, osteoporosis (ironically the more dairy you consume, the more bone loss you get), autoimmune diseases, and even reproductive disorders. They also contain casomorphins, which are addictive opioids.
As far as plant foods go, plant milks are not particularly beneficial, other than being a convenient choice for suring up a micronutrient deficiency or two that vegans might be missing (most commercial plant milks are fortified with multivitamins). It's more that dairy is so bad that virtually anything is a better choice.
https://nutritionstudies.org/smart-parents-guide-to-why-kids-should-not-have-dairy-products/
https://nutritionstudies.org/dairy-consumption-weight-loss-claims/
Full disclosure, the site you linked offers a non-accredited certificate in vegan nutrition. The "expert" they cite in the crazier claims in your links is the founder and president of the group, and those claims are generally either rejected, or merely "not accepted due to lack of evidence" by the scientific community.
Honestly, to a neutral observer, if you took the vegan propaganda off the site and stripped it to text files, both of them still read like bogey-man anti-meat articles. Between the un-cited claims that contradict the studies I find in a google search and the broad-stroke accusations, I wouldn't be able to take it seriously in a vacuum.
I'd go into details, but if you read the articles it will be obvious to you. If it's not, hit me up and I'll point out just a few of the parts of those two gossip-mag articles are the worst offenders to scientific thinking.
One true statement comes out of it. Drinking cow milk does not seem to be a contributor for weight gain OR loss in a vacuum.
That "non-accredited" education program is eligible for a variety of continuing education credits.
That orgs assertion that dairy doesn't cause cancer is suspicious at best when there is evidence of cancer risk, multiple cancers, and when that same organization appears to be largely an industry frontend.
Lastly I trust wfpb dietary patterns because they work so well, any person can find out for them self. Join any active wfpb community and you see people routinely shedding lbs, lowering their blood cholesterol levels to miraculous lows, managing their autoimmune symptoms or even in some cases to the point of remission, and overall feeling better and having more energy than they have in their entire lives.
People who follow more animal-centric diets on the other hand, routinely die faster and more miserably.
So? I deal with con-ed regularly at a professional level. That's NOT a big win. You can get con-ed in some healthcare fields going to vegas and sitting through a speech about how to raise wages in the field.
First, "evidence of cancer risk" is why you can't buy a cup of coffee in California without a cancer warning. That is a very specific term that means "we have not shown that it causes cancer". One of your links is a statistical analysis that admits only to controlling for soy, in over 52,000 people. The other took a bunch of pubmed studies and found very slight correlation with prostate cancer risk, with a "may increase" conclusion.
None of your links are "causes cancer" or even "likely to cause cancer". They're about as strong as the "soy causes cancer" or "artificial sweeteners cause cancer" or (yes) "coffee causes cancer".
Second... I have NEVER heard anyone call Cancer Research UK a shill charity. They are quite literally a cancer research charity that is, yes, backed by companies that treat cancer and save lives. I mean, how exactly are you disputing them over that?
Ahhh yes. "Plant Chompers", a propaganda vid. You just HAD to change this from a dairy vs plant milk health discussion and go full Vegan Or Die. Here's my equally controversial anti-vegan answers:
Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why
Vegan diets don't work. Here's why
You won't agree. I don't care. You just linked me to "Plant Chompers" as part of your argument.
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.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/dont-forget-dairy-part-childs-healthy-diet/
It sounds like you just don't like natural milk.
First of all, I fucking love milk, you do not fucking know me.
Second of all, you really want to get in a battle of links?? https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/dairy-health-food-or-health-risk-2019012515849