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.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you, but that doesn’t mean we should be subsidizing its production. If we’re gonna do that I say we also pay car makers to start making fun hatchbacks again because I prefer them.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      i don’t drink other “milks” but i do drink soylent and, to my pallet, it’s a perfect milk substitute. and, in a lot of ways, it’s better nutritionally: every 400kcal delivers 20% of the RDA for 28 essential nutrients, and a (reasonable) blend of carbs, fat, and protein.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re getting downvoted but you’re right. I think some people just like their milk to taste like coconut or something.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re not getting downvotes for saying they don’t taste the same. They’re getting downvoted for speaking an entirely subjective opinion as some hard truth.

        • Frigid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s more that liking a product isn’t a good reason to subsidize it’s production.

              • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because it supports middle rural America and that’s where conservative strongholds are.

                I’ve never heard any politician say the subsidies exist because people like it. It’s always in support of jobs, etc. Are you daft? Point to one politician or lobbyist claiming subsidies are needed because folks like the flavor.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And even for non conservatives, cutting farmers’ income and making them stop producing (even if they produce too much) is a big no no, no matter your political alignment.

                • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  …or that they love all the bad health outcomes from drinking milk and consuming massive quantities of cheese.

              • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                There is freedom of selection, but it’s not a free market. We’re literally discussing that in this post. Milk is substantially cheaper due to subsidies. Many people can’t afford to simply purchase the more expensive one when a cheaper version is available. However, in a free market, it wouldn’t be that much cheaper.

                New products take time to surpass old products. You have false advertising and bad information floating around as truth and people think milk needs to be had to be healthy. It was so heavily advertised to boomers through millennials and even some of gen z, that I’m not surprised many have fallen for the marketing like you so heavily did.

              • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                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 ‘hard truth’ is simply because it’s the way is…a complete circle, your logic on that one.

                You’re getting dragged by others because you opened with an objective claim that milk tastes better, which is a subjective opinion. You’re now pivoting to argue that cow milk is objectively better because it’s more popular? Taylor Swift isn’t the best musician because she’s popular. Because “best” is incredibly complex. Best guitarist? Composer? Singer? What’s best of any of those categories, anyway? We gotta ask Phaedrus, I suppose.

                If you’re trying to argue that cow milk is the “best”: Cow milk is really good at getting protein and other minerals/vitamins to folks. Really good. It’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. I’m not some anti-milk crusader.

                Dairy production, however, is really energy- and space-intensive compared to some alternatives. There’s a tradeoff to be thought carefully about, and it deserves more than “cow milk is popular therefore it’s the best”. Unless you’re just trying to say that cow milk is popular because cow milk is popular (which no one was arguing?). If that’s the case, see my first reply. Circularity complete.

      • Affine Connection@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cow milk tasting much better than alternatives (which I do very strongly agree with) is not exactly a good argument for dairy subsidies.