758
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Anonymousllama@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Spot on. People are out here trying to play like almond, oat, soy and every other milk substitute is exactly the same as dairy based milk, it's not and will not ever be, they're different products

Also pretending that people swapping from dairy to alternate milks will somehow impact the looming climate crisis is also pretty disingenuous

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

If we all went vegan we'd reduce food based emissions by 70%, which is 15% of the entire planets GHG emissions. Not to mention recovering 75% of farm land.

It really is a no brainer if you want to make a difference. And if I, "a rural New Zealander who grew up on a dairy farm who said he'd never eat a vegetarian meal in his life" can convert to veganism based on the logic of it, surely anyone could.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

there is no reason to think farmland would be "recovered" or converted to any less- environmentally destructive use.

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Ready for another reply where I used /u/commie's clever abilities to reply to an argument? Prepare yourself for an amazing analytical response!

"I disagree"

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

this is poisoning the well

[-] clegko@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Do we really need to recover farmland, though? At least in the US, we have way more than enough to go around. And there's like 19 people in New Zealand, y'all don't need the space. :P

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah our rivers in NZ got so polluted with cow effluence and runoff the waters became legally unswimmable. Then the right wing government changed what is legally define as "polluted" so people could swim again.

Farm land (in particular farm land unsuitable for crops) can be used to plant forests, further reducing climate change. If the boomer generation lost 6-10 IQ points on average for leaded petrol, ours will see that again from high PPM CO2 rates.

[-] clover@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago

Or look at the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. That all done to produce more farmland. So, if we were using or land more efficiently we wouldn't be carving up the "lungs of the world"

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

If we all went vegan we'd reduce food based emissions by 70

I doubt it.

[-] Sodis@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Why? Because all the animal herders will still produce lots of meat at a loss and then just burn everything no one wants to eat?

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

i don't believe the methodology used to calculate emissions from animal agriculture is appropriate: every examination i've done has attributed emissions to animals that are actually conservation, like feeding cattle cottonseed and then attributing the impacts of cotton grown for textiles to cattle.

[-] Sodis@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

But then you doubt the number and not the general effect of reducing carbon emissions by switching to a plant-based diet, right? Because it is pretty obvious, that growing plants and then feeding those plants to animals is way more inefficient than eating the plants without extra steps.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

a lot of what is fed to animals are parts of plants that people can't or won't eat. there may be some reduction but i don't believe it can be anywhere near 70%

[-] Sodis@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Do you have any sources on hand? It's hard to google for this stuff without running into sites by PETA etc, which are too biased for my taste.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

i don't know of any broad surveys across crop categories but i'm pretty familiar with soy

https://ourworldindata.org/soy

you can see that 17% of all soybeans becomes oil. but a soybean is only about 20% oil altogether. in order to extract that much oil, we must press about 85% of the global crop of soybeans. the vast majority if the soy fed to livestock is the industrial waste from that process. you can see in that chart it's called "soy cake" or "soy meal".

elsewhere in this thread i mentioned cottonseed.

[-] Sodis@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

But then humans can also eat that soy meal to get their proteins. It's pretty tasty, I eat it regularly.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

people do eat soy meal but they eat very little of the amount produced. if the vast majority of it weren't fed to livestock it would just be waste.

[-] Sodis@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

We are talking about a switch to a predominantly vegan diet. People need to get the protein they got from meat from somewhere else.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

i think that's a hard sell for most people and i frankly just don't see it happening. do you have a plan to make that happen?

[-] Sodis@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Well, if the first step happens (people going vegan), then other protein sources will be automatically in demand. A huge chunk of protein powder nowadays is whey, that can be easily substituted by soy, because of the sufficient amino acid profile of soy.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

if the first step happens (people going vegan)

this is what I'm looking for a plan to accomplish.

[-] DarthFrodo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

in order to extract that much oil, we must press about 85% of the global crop of soybeans. the vast majority if the soy fed to livestock is the industrial waste from that process.

I've already told you that we can produce plant-based meat or soy protein for other uses from that, which you conceded, and you still call it "industrial waste". Why are you knowingly spreading misinformation?

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Why are you knowingly spreading misinformation?

i am doing no such thing. i'm simply pointing out your lies.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

not only can we do that: we DO that. but there frankly isn't enough human use for that, so it would be wasted if we didn't feed it to animals.

[-] DarthFrodo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If the rest of the plant would be wasted, it would be more economical to just grow another plant that's more efficient for oil production (canola, sunflower), not soybeans which are incidentally the crop highest in protein.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/area-per-tonne-oil

It's not grown in such quantities because it's essential but simply because there's demand for the extra protein from factory farms right now.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

soybeans are grown for nutrient fixation in rotation with corn. they're more of a soil crop than an oil crop.

[-] DarthFrodo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Among the cereals, the most prominent as a source of energy is corn. Between 70% and 80% of its production is used as a feed ingredient worldwide.

https://www.veterinariadigital.com/en/articulos/importance-of-corn-in-animal-production/

"We need animal agriculture because we need to grow the feed plants to grow more feed plants for animal agriculture"

We've come full circle.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Among the cereals, the most prominent as a source of energy is corn. Between 70% and 80% of its production is used as a feed ingredient worldwide.

this can be true while, at the same time, soybean oil's byproduct is soy meal that would be wasted if it weren't fed to animals.

[-] DarthFrodo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I've already addressed that argument above.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

saying "i've already addressed it" is a rhetorical trick to avoid admitting it's true.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

“We need animal agriculture because we need to grow the feed plants to grow more feed plants for animal agriculture”

this phrase never appears in your source or anywhere else in this thread. what are you quoting?

[-] DarthFrodo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's your argument put in another way

soybeans are grown for nutrient fixation in rotation with corn. they're more of a soil crop than an oil crop.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

no, it's a strawman of my argument.

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I'm going to use your sound logical deductions and reasoning skills to reply to your comment in kind, ready?

I doubt it

Yeah? Well I doubt THAT.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. i've presented exactly as much evedince as the claim to which i was responding.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

you can doubt whether i doubt something but i am the authority on whether i doubt something so self-reporting my doubt is the strongest evidence that can be gathered in support of the claim.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

If you see how much crops we need to grow and fresh water we need to feed a cow, you'd see how inefficient meat is.

70% of all the crops we grow is to feed our livestock.

Meaning for 1/3 on our plate, we use more than double the resources than the other 2/3 combined.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

70% of all the crops we grow is to feed our livestock.

that's a lie

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
758 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19248 readers
2677 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS