Like an estimated two-thirds of the worldā€™s population, I donā€™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 didnā€™t have to askā€”or pay extraā€”for 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, arenā€™t just good for the lactose intolerant: Theyā€™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 milkā€”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, theyā€™re often more expensive. Walk into any Starbucks, and youā€™ll likely pay around 70 cents extra for nondairy options.

. Dairyā€™s affordability edge, explains MarĆ­a Mascaraque, an analyst at market research firm Euromonitor International, relies on the industryā€™s ability to produce ā€œat 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, canā€™t beat those economies of scale. (Globally, alt-milks arenā€™t new on the sceneā€”coconut milk is even mentioned in the Sanskrit epic Mahābhārata, which is thousands of years old.)

What else contributes to cow milkā€™s dominance? Dairy farmers are ā€œpolitical favorites,ā€ says Daniel Sumner, a University of California, Davis, agricultural economist. In addition to support like the ā€œDairy Checkoff,ā€ a joint government-industry program to promote milk products (including the ā€œGot Milk?ā€ campaign), theyā€™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 guidelinesā€”and why it has featured content, such as a 2013 article by thenā€“Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, trumpeting the dairy industry as ā€œleading the way in sustainable innovation.ā€

But the USDA doesnā€™t directly support plant-based milk. It does subsidize some alt-milk ingredientsā€”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 ā€œstrategy for growth is advertisement and promotion and publicity,ā€ which isnā€™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. ā€œMarket-level conditions allow us to move more quicklyā€ than other companies, a spokesperson for the coffee giant told me, but didnā€™t say if or when the price drop would happen elsewhere.

In the United States, meanwhile, itā€™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 ā€œprice isnā€™t the main thingā€ for their buyersā€”as long as enough privileged consumers will pay up, alt-milk can fill a premium niche. But itā€™s going to take a bigger market than that to make real progress in curbing emissions from food.

  • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    7
    Ā·
    9 months ago

    My takeaway from this is that Nestle probably doesnā€™t own any dairy companies, but probably does own a plant that makes oat milk. They keep all the profit in their own ecosystem by buying their supplies from themself and then get to tell us how green and thoughtful they are.

    • capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Are you suggesting cowā€™s milk is more sustainable/ecological than any plant milk?

      • HardNut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        9 months ago

        No, theyā€™re suggesting that Nestle is probably acting in bad faith by attempting to close a monopolistic gap rather than genuinely doing something for the betterment of the world

          • HardNut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            Ā·
            9 months ago

            Again, youā€™re dissenting on something that wasnā€™t asserted. If thatā€™s your opinion, then thatā€™s your opinion, and thatā€™s fine. But, if thereā€™s a conflict of interest in a study, then we have reason to doubt the results are legitimate. This is what the comment was saying, and thatā€™s drastically far from a total conclusion one way or the other.

            Your question also suggests thereā€™s one correct answer, which just plane isnā€™t true. It makes more ecological sense for some people to consume milk products in favor of plant based just based on location alone.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              Ā·
              9 months ago

              Your question also suggests thereā€™s one correct answer, which just plane isnā€™t true. It makes more ecological sense for some people to consume milk products in favor of plant based just based on location alone.

              I donā€™t think thatā€™s ever true.

              Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and itā€™s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, itā€™s 0.5%.

              https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

              What you eat has a far larger impact on ecology/GHGs than where it comes from.

              • HardNut@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                Ā·
                9 months ago

                Why arenā€™t you responding to the topic of the thread? What you responded to was not the heart of my comment nor was it the point I was trying to get across to you.

                Do you think Nestle is acting in good faith?

                You really insisted on steering the conversation toward this study, yet itā€™s largely flawed. I know Iā€™m taking the bait, but as someone who grew up on a farm in a rural community, several red flags were very apparent. What they are talking about are gross emissions, thatā€™s whatā€™s measured by carbon capture. What these types of measurements donā€™t consider, is how much CO2 the immediate environment is going to recapture and make use of. Cattle and buffalo before them have been a part of the north American prairies for thousands of years, and the cycle has always been the bovine graze on the grass, which spurs regrowth, aided by the gasses emitted by the bovine after eating said grass.

                I believe theyā€™re being selective about where theyā€™re measuring their data as well, because it does not make sense for land use change to be a factor in the vast majority of cases for grass fed cattle. Again, this is why location matters, cattle do well on grassland. It also makes no sense for the emissions of machinery to be coupled in the data with the emissions of cattle. Itā€™s also virtually impossible for the machinery emissions to be that low for wheat and rye specifically, because I know first hand how many diesel tank refills it takes get the seeding done alone, let alone the constant maintenance it takes afterwards. It doesnā€™t take any machinery to raise grassland cattle there but it sure does take machinery to farm grains, farmers have heavy machinery in their fields constantly. You have to plow the field, disc, harrow, spray herbicide, spray pesticide, seed the crop, spray fertilizer, roll the peas, swath the canola, harvest all of it with a massive machine, all while a cow chills watching from the next field over lol.

                My guess is that theyā€™re referring to warehouse cattle, which donā€™t exist everywhere (outright illegal in Canada I think). This is why it matters where it comes from. Canā€™t really verify any of their data either since the source studies are behind a pay wall.

                Iā€™d also even say thereā€™s far more to ecology than raw emissions. Almond production has been a massive hindrance on Californiaā€™s water supply, Theyā€™re prone to drought already, and theyā€™re still mass producing almonds while in a drought right now. Regardless of emissions, we would be actively contributing to an ongoing crisis if we increased plant milk demand. To do so out of ecological principle would be incredibly ironic. But, that seems to be what encouraging plant based milk over cattle has done.

                • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  Ā·
                  9 months ago

                  Third party here, if we want to be fair and acknowledge that some milk supplies are worse than others, letā€™s also acknowledge that nut milks are notoriously water intensive as opposed to a grain based milk like oat. But Iā€™ll heartily agree that water rights, management, and surrounding legal actions in California areā€¦ nuts (bu dum tsss) right now.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      Ā·
      9 months ago

      My takeaway from this is that Nestle probably doesnā€™t own any dairy companies,

      They probably do, but oat milk is probably not great for making milk chocolate or several other of their food products. Decent coffee also hides less appetizing milks somewhat.