Plant Milk Is Better For Us and the Climate. So Why Do We Subsidize Dairy?
Plant Milk Is Better For Us and the Climate. So Why Do We Subsidize Dairy?
Cow juice is still cheaper—and your taxes keep it that way.
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're viewing a single thread.
This is too narrow. Why do we subsidize food at all? America is supposed to be free market capitalists, right? Subsidies don't fit that definition?
(in reality, farmers need some sort of support system, I believe, as do we all, but subsidies don't fit the free market capitalism narrative.)
We'll you're pointing out how ridiculous it is to believe in a free market. Because one has never existed. What ought we subsidize though? Obviously foods that are better for our environment, climate, health, economy and for animal welfare.
Dairy, meat and egg coalitions have known for years that subsidies and marketing are things they need to pursue for greater success, they've used tactics similar to tobacco companies with their marketing and they've used lobbying tactics similar to oil and gas giants as well. It's clear we need to stop subsidizing them.
We’ll you’re pointing out how ridiculous it is to believe in a free market.
Yep! That was my point.
What ought we subsidize though? Obviously foods that are better for our environment, climate, health, economy and for animal welfare.
Yeah, if we must subsidize something, then sure, those sound good.
Subsidies only benefit the big "farms" (industrial operations) and encourage producing the subsidized crop regardless of its value. The incentives are so perverse that farms end up dumping their milk because there is no market for the amount produced.
Personally am in favor of eliminating all food subsidies. Making food valuable could eliminate so many of our other societal problems - poor health, destruction of natural resources, overpopulation.
There are very obvious negative side effects to making food more expensive.
I can come up with my own, but what are some of the side effects you're thinking of? Right now food is so cheap that most people's only metric is price, with no consideration for quality, nutrition, environmental impact, etc. Most of what we are eating isn't really food, just an engineered combination of four or five heavily subsidized crops.
Right now food is so cheap that most people’s only metric is price
This makes no sense to me - people can choose healthy or unhealthy options because food is so cheap generally. Do you think that if food becomes expensive people will buy more healthy food for... reasons?
Most of what we are eating isn’t really food, just an engineered combination of four or five heavily subsidized crops.
This is pure bullshit.
Maybe you don't live in the US. At least here, people spend a smaller portion of their income on food than any society at any time in history, but the most on health care. Not getting into the many reasons health care is so expensive, the fact that food is an afterthought has clearly led to major health issues. So what I am suggesting is that if we had to give more weight to decisions around food it could lead to better choices for our health. My bias is that I'm against the direction our society is heading tech-wise, so in my scenario people would be spending more time with their families and communities and less time and money rampantly consuming products.
Regarding your second comment, how would you describe the majority of products in grocery stores if not what I claimed they are?
So what I am suggesting is that if we had to give more weight to decisions around food it could lead to better choices for our health.
You think making food more expensive is going to make people make better choices about what food they buy? I don't think you live in the US, I think you live in fantasy land.
My bias is that I’m against the direction our society is heading tech-wise, so in my scenario people would be spending more time with their families and communities and less time and money rampantly consuming products.
🙄
Regarding your second comment, how would you describe the majority of products in grocery stores if not what I claimed they are?
"Food".
It's not exactly a mystery that when something costs more people do it less. If subsidies went away, the price of processed "foods" made up of highly subsidized ingredients would rise. Most fresh fruits and vegetables are not subsidized so they would not. Do you not think it's possible that if the price of poptarts, frozen waffles, and white bread surpassed fresh ingredients, some amount of people would choose to make their own breakfast? Similarly, big dairy and meat operations recieve the majority of subsidies in their industry. During COVID as prices rose, many people began buying meat and dairy locally.
If you consider boxed meals, canned goods with chemical additives, and shelf stable bread to be real food then I won't argue with you.
If you consider boxed meals, canned goods with chemical additives, and shelf stable bread to be real food then I won’t argue with you.
Then we're done.
you can just subsidize food generally if that's the worry
You can... But we've chosen to subsidize farming since that tends to be the raw ingredients. So in a way all food is kinda subsidized.
Something something corporate lobbyist reaping benefits at the cost of public taxed $
Farming is risky business and people need food. You don't want one bad season ruining a bunch of farmers who then stop farming. Subsidies help reduce that risk so that we have a more stable food supply.