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.
Need to keep the ag subsidies flowing so that rural areas keep voting conservative
Removed by mod
The industry got too big and too reliant on subsidies. A reckoning will occur at some point, it’s just a matter of whether it’s announced ahead of time or surprises everyone.
Removed by mod
Every day the reckoning will be worse than it would have been the day before. That’s why it should be planned and not A) ripped off like a bandaid or B) have it fail on its own.
Right now the government is doing practically the opposite and reassuring and strengthening the bandaid despite the inevitable need for it to come off.
I get it. I’m also on board with UBI. Hell, I’m even a vegan that isn’t calling for an immediate end to all subsidies for the ag industry even though a vast majority of it is in support of a practice that I believe to be highly unethical and horrendous. But I get that it can’t change overnight, but that doesn’t mean to keep kicking the can down the road either.
The human cost then will be more than the human cost now. It just will be “future” humans instead of the current ones so they so keep supporting it and making it someone else’s problem.
Removed by mod
Ok, leave a note behind to explain to your children’s family why they’re in extreme poverty because some folks didn’t want to gradually remove a subsidy in a controlled fashion. Again. You’re just punishing more future people. But I guess since you don’t have to meet them, you’re ok with sacrificing their livelihood.
You will never get a UBI while large amounts are subsidizing specific industries. Wanna know where you can get that money though?
The thing is, I don’t even think we disagree that much. You just are taking the one approach I advocated against (but still argued would be better than doing nothing; ie keeping the subsidies) and pretending that’s my whole argument. I argued for gradual removal of subsidies to correct the market over time. You are advocating for a scenario that likely will never occur without some other large scale disaster or giant swing in public consciousness (UBI will never occur prior to ag having a market bubble pop… one will never happen during our life, one has a chance to).
“It’s not a good time right now” - the party in power at the time
Too big and too reliant on subsidies is a feature, not a bug. You want your farmers producing a fairly large surplus most of the time, because the harm resulting from a major food shortage is catastrophic. A widespread drought, disease, natural disaster, crop failure, or other shortage needs to be made up with other foodstuffs.
Subsidization incentivizes production even when market rates fall below profitability, which is what happens when production is significantly greater than actual demand.
Sorry, but that’s horseshit.
Taking away dairy subsidies would drive up milk and milk product prices, pushing more people to buy alternatives instead. Any loss of employment in the dairy industry is balanced by new jobs in manufacturing plant milks and dairy alternatives. This isn’t people being replaced by robots, it’s cows being replaced by plants. You still need pretty much the same workforce to package and distribute it regardless.
Only 1% of americans work in the primary sector and that is not only comprised of farmers. Furthermore, there are more farming products than dairy, oats for oat milk have to be farmed somewhere as well.
It’s not as if Democrats don’t also throw plenty of bones to farmers.
Even if the farmers themselves are likely to be relatively conservative, they’re such a politically sympathetic group that no one wants to be seen as “going after hard-working real American farmers!”. Things like the Iowa caucuses playing a huge role in national politics don’t help either (although the Dems have thankfully killed that).
One thing nobody has commented on - how that article slips in a seemingly positive mention of Nestlé (they own the cafe that uses plant milks). That raised my eyebrows.
I’m beginning to notice a handful of company ties to “make perfect the enemy of good” takes like this.
It’s enough to drive one to schizophrenia. Everything is a hidden message
C̵̡̢̡̢̙̰̻̘̠͎̟͖̯̉͐̉̊̓̎̽͂͆̈̄̔͊͊̃̔̈́́̂̑̿̐̈́͑͛̆̾̈́́͘̚̕͝͝ơ̴̢̧̨̢̟̳̜͙̝͚̟̞͖̞̲͙͍̠͎̞̫͙̮̦̥̯̹̟̦̘̮̖͛͋̏̂̈́̽̓͊͂̃̀̒́͒̏͛̓̐̅́̽͛̇͆̀̽̋͋̋̈́̍́̓͑̚̕͝ͅn̸̡̧̨̛̛̛͍̺̤͎̮͕̟͇̞̙̞̯̤̭̠̥̰̹͍̮͍͙̫̮͉̫̻͖̜̭̦̱͚͎͖͖͓̹̽͛̊̂̓̿̄̏̊̀̀͌̓̽̏͂̒̂̌̄̄̀̊̆̏͑̈́̊̊͌͒͗̀̎̈́̚̕͝͝͠s̴̡͔̗͖̝͖̫̩̲̗̪̤̯̳̼̲̼̈́́̅̇̿̀̎͗́͗͒̀̿̌̎͐͛̆͗͆̿̓̈͗͌̌͒͒́̚̕̚̚͝ṵ̸̢̥̭͎͍̲̟͍̹͙̱̦̤̮̜̖͕̪̱̼̞̜̖̹̥̜͍̝̑̄̆̍̉͒̍̌̅̏̌̊̇͑̄̂̇͌́̿̈́̾͂̏̒͛̐̐̉̏̕̕̚̚͜͜͝͠͝͝ͅͅͅm̵̡̡̨̻̱̹̙̭͚͔̣̘͎̬̖̝̲͈̦̱͓̤̤̲̲̫̫̩͔̮̻̂͋̄̀͐̀̔̿̊̾̋͐̃͆̕̕͜ͅe̸̢̡͇̤͔͈̮̥͓̙͓̻͙̹̦͔̼͔͛̉́̇ͅͅ
Always follow the money. Nobody does journalism for free.
Except almonds. Almonds are terrible water wasters, and mostly grown in California where they can least afford the water.
Almond is the worst of the nut milks, but it’s STILL way better for the environment than dairy.
What you get in stores is not even really almond milk. Real almond milk would be way too expensive to be competitive.
Exactly… Ughh I still fail to understand why almond milk is popular among vegans. It’s very expensive and doesn’t even taste that nice…
Still more efficient on resource utilization than animal agriculture. If you hate almond milk for that reason, you should want the dairy industry completely abolished.
Shit, you should want all animal agriculture banned.
Based and correct.
Eh, there are plenty of use cases where certain land types aren’t really arable. Ruminants fill that niche easily.
The catch is that like 80% of the land used for livestock currently could also use crops instead.
Fwiw US dairy plans to be carbon neutral by 2050.
The bigger catch is that 70% of all crops we grow go to our livestock.
We wouldn’t need to use those lands if we just ate less meat.
The bigger catch is that 70% of all crops we grow go to our livestock.
this isn’t true
Livestock accounts for 77% of global farming land, while supplying only 18% of calories and 37% of protein.
So you’re saying almond milk drinkers could end up going to hell someday?
/s -The Good Place reference
I don’t want it gone but I don’t want it subsidized. I’m not planning on being vegan but I’m cutting out a ton of animal protein from my life. I make it a special thing.
I feel like trying to compare a water intensive crop grown in a place known for drought to crops that can be grown in many places where water is far more readily available is being a bit disingenuous. You’re not comparing apples to apples.
I mean, you could say that we shouldn’t be wasting resources on animal agriculture anywhere, but especially in the same places that don’t have enough water for crops.
Feeding food and giving water to other “food” will always be far less efficient than just providing a fraction of that water to plant-based foods. Animal agriculture is a waste.
My personal theory is that we subsidize dairy not for the milk, but for the cheese. As far as I’m aware you can’t make cheese out of plant milks, and we’ve gotten pretty reliant on cheese as a source of protein and other nutrients in our American diets - especially among children and lower income diets.
Look up: cheese caves. 👍
In short: There is so much excess cheese out there that the US government is literally storing billions of pounds of it in underground caves.
What the fuck
You can make plant-based cheeses. And some of them are pretty good. But they lack all of the same properties. Like, you can get a cheese that that when hot will stretch a little bit like the cheese on a pizza, but as it cools off it loses all of that elasticity and is not great for lukewarm pizza. You can get cheese that is pretty decent for lukewarm and hot pizza, but it doesn’t have that stretch. It more just rips apart. And you definitely don’t have the span of “flavors” of cheese or whatever you’d call it. Some of the big ones, sure, but again, they don’t have all the same physical properties.
I don’t mind the loss of those properties, but many people do.
Cheese isn’t a great source for protein compared to beans in regards to price though.
Honestly, I think we subsidize the dairy industry simply because they’ve been lobbying so long. Meat is subsidized too. It’s the one market that the conservatives are fine with ignoring the mantra of “free market” and support regulating the hell out of it in whatever way supports the “farmers” (big farm is nothing like the labeling suggests and is all headed by big guys in suits who likely never have been on a farm in their life).
Both meat and dairy are subsidized because they consume huge amounts of corn, and the corn industry is an even bigger lobby.
Beans can taste amazing when prepared by a competent chef, but often taste like shit when prepared wrong.
Cheese, on the other hand, is much more forgiving of poor preparation. Eat it straight out of the package, sliced and on bread or crackers, melt it into sauces, or grill it, or any number of other uses.
Simply put, cheese is fast and easy, and can elevate almost any other food.
Also, try to get kids to eat beans. It can happen. But not easily, and often you have to do it in the form of chili, with loads of cheese.
You’re just describing American children raised in a poor diet. Beans are a staple food among not of the world population, including their children. They’re super easy to prepare as well. Talking about the extremely fatty and unhealthy cheese like that is probably one of the many reasons the US is obese and unhealthy.
Cheese is not a healthy part of a diet in any quantity where it provides a significant protein of the person’s protein needs.
Soy cheese is called tofu.
Government cheese has been a thing since at least the great depression.
Cheese was one of our main obstacles toward cutting out dairy. I came across a vegan cheese sauce recipe that utilizes blended steamed potatoes & carrots for the texture and nutritional yeast and other spices for the flavor. Been using it for a few years now and haven’t looked back yet.
It’s hard to find good nutritional yeast though. Since they are quite expensive, it is not easy to try around until you find one, that does not taste like garbage.
Yes it’s an expensive purchase, but I buy it once every 6 months or so. It goes a long way and I use little (⅓ cup) at a time.
Some of my family think we’re living large because we can “afford” cashew nuts, which we use for many purposes, but don’t think twice about spending 3 times more on meat every single week.
Yeah, once you found a brand, that tastes well, it’s not an issue anymore. But paying a lot just to notice, that it tastes disgusting, kinda sucks.
Unsure if you’re talking about cow milk, plant based milk, cashews or nutritional yeast 🤷♂️
Nutritional yeast
I had this fantastic plant-based milk product on my store shelves called “Not Milk”. I really enjoyed it. Had this mild coconut flavor which might turn off some (not me) but anyway, it’s gone now because it was too expensive for the market I’m in.
Meanwhile gallons of milk flow for the same purpose, only subsidized for under half the cost per ounce.
As we do, we stifle innovation ourselves based on our past.
check out your local Aldi. They’ve got a range of almond, soy, coconut and oat milk at very reasonable prices. I was loving coconut milk until my friend told me how high in cholesterol it is (like really high.) Since then I do about half coconut and half light almond for my oatmeal and I can’t say enough how good it tastes. I’m eating oatmeal as a dessert now sometimes because I like it so much.
I thought almonds took too much water or something?
Depends on where they are grown.
California is a huge Almond supplier, but they have had frequent droughts. People get angry when they are asked to conserve water and then everything they’ve conserved is used to grow a water-hungry crop.
This could be solved by growing them somewhere else, or desalinating (California is a coastal state after all).
Zones 5-9 are recommended or they won’t live through the winter. Also, have they really worked out the desalination thing for large areas? https://www.growinganything.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
we need to mandate water efficient farming pratices
Less than regular milk so if you’re divided between almond and cow milk, to for almond.
Butter and heavy cream don’t really have a good replacement, but regular milk has so many alternatives it’s crazy. Almond milk and oat milk I prefer to regular old milk.
Check to see if your store has “Nextmilk” made by Silk. It is cheaper than “Not Milk” and tastes better!
I see soy/oat/rice milk as their own thing, instead of a direct cow milk substitute/replacement.
There are many, many dairy product that are important as food or ingredients to other foods such as butter, yogurt, ice cream, cream, infant forumlad, and various cheeses that cannot be replaced directly by plant based alternatives.
And also, if you don’t like milk, try getting one of those unhomoginized milk in glass bottles that’s usually directly bottled by local farms. You have to shake a lot to get the cream on top dissolved again, but there is nothing that’s quite like an ice cold cup of that.
As someone who lives entirely on plants, those ingredients are all easily replaced. Everything cow tit juice can do, plants can do better.
Nah that’s just not true. You need milk for baking, vegan bakeries are shit. Milk/Cream is also very important for creamy soups and sauces
infant forumlad
Telling on yourself Margot.
Oh bugger off, mate, we all make typos sometimes.
I just thought it was funny and potentially apt.
Jokes don’t land some time, and that’s OK.
No worries, forumlad.
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.
Bring that complain to the producers of “oat milk” and similar products. Producing a gallon of oat milk has ingredience costs of about 20ct. You know what you are paying for it in the supermarket. Go figure who gets rich on people who are looking for “alternatives”.
They meant “pricey” as in going to the bathroom a lot more than usual
Producing a gallon of oat milk has ingredience costs of about 20ct
To them, in bulk. Making your own oat milk is about an 80% savings over retail cost (about $0.50-$1/gallon), about the same as the money saved making your own yogurt.
This isn’t about rich people getting richer specifically on plant-based milks. There’s just several levels of markups. Oat Milk company passes on a markup on the oats they purchase, then they pass another markup to the wholesaler. Then the wholesaler passes a markup to the retailer. Than the retailer passes a markup that averages around 30% but generally goes from 15% to 75%, usually larger markups for products that sell slower to justify their investment in them.
This is arguably why capitalism is failing us, but nothing is unique about it with Oat Milk. Right now, milk cost of production is high (enough that farmers are losing money), but that’s temporary and wholesalers have the leverage to pay prices that are below cost (which is why farmers are losing money). Then, there’s one fewer step in markups.
So let’s say your 20c figure is right (it’s not. Oat prices are fairly high right now). They’re paying more like 30-40c for the ingredients, then they sell it to wholesalers for over $1/gal (which is arguably justified, which is already in range of the $1.50/gal farm milk costs hit. Then, yes, wholesalers and retailers each mark oat milk up a bit higher because it moves slower.
First: The 20ct figure is quite on the spot, actually, your recipe uses far more oat than the industry uses, and the 20ct figure even includes vegetable oil (to make ich more creamy) and chemicals (to bind fat and water based ingredients). On the other hand, I wonder where you $1/gal comes from - that would be dirt cheap in comparison to the prices I see in the supermarket.
First: The 20ct figure is quite on the spot, actually, your recipe uses far more oat than the industry uses
Fair enough, though I cannot seem to find solid figures anywhere. Obviously it’s cheaper to make than almond milk, and they retail around the same… But I still dug into number using the $0.20 figure.
On the other hand, I wonder where you $1/gal comes from - that would be dirt cheap in comparison to the prices I see in the supermarket.
That came from the cost per gallon of oat milk being paid by the wholesalers to the manufacturers. Often, supermarkets and other retailers do not purchase directly from manufacturer, but from a wholesaler or distributor. Note also the $1.50 figure farmers are paid by wholesalers. I live in a region with dairy farms and we’re paying 3-4x that number by the time it hits the grocery store register.
I don’t see why dairy should be subsidized but some plant milks aren’t exactly environmentally friendly either. The best can be said is they’re better than dairy, assuming the same land could be used for both. But they can be devastating in their own right. E.g. to grow 1 almond (i.e. one kernel) takes over 3 gallons of water. Other crops used to make milk like oats have lower water consumption.
The almond example is frequently brought up, but this is still half of what dairy milk requires, without taking into account the difference in land use too
Like I said better than dairy but still awful. Moreso because almonds are grown in places like California where water is being depleted.
It’s better for the environment for us just to die off…
There must be a middle point though
You’re referring to old news buddy, https://www.drought.gov/states/california
the sources of the water are vastly different though. the totals for dairy milk include the rainwater that grows the grass but otherwise is inaccessible to humans. the almonds, by contrast, are irrigated. not to mention the potable water that goes directly into the final product.
You think most dairy cows are fed on naturally watered grass?
I don’t know exactly what dairy cows are fed, but I do know that most cows eat mostly grass for most of their lives.
Most cows where? In the wild, sure. The meat we eat? Hell no
you don’t know what you’re talking about.
they do start eating grass but most cows end up getting fed stuff like corn, grains, alfafa etc.
They can be, in NZ there are is a huge amount of land that has been converted to dairy through massive irrigation schemes which has caused massive problems for the rivers that flow naturally through these places… I imagine there are other places in the world used for dairy that wouldn’t be suitable if not for irrigation?
Here’s why dairy should be subsidized. Because all farms should be subsidized. Most of our food production needs to be subsidized to prevent bad economic shifts creating financial hardships that sink farms and lead to a food shortfall.
I mean, here’s a microcosm for you. Some seafood verticals had price swings recently, and when the swings hit bottom, it was actually cheaper to keep the boat in port than go out for a trip. If the swings remained or kept going down, it would have tanked some of the smaller fishing companies. So when that swing would end, the shortage of production would have the opposite effect - dramatically higher fish prices. Yes, that’ll get people back into the industry… bigger businesses that will carefully milk the increased prices instead of simply increasing food availability.
Now, the way dairy and and beef farms are subsidized is a problem right now. Even most farmers are against it. Most dairy farms don’t get a penny (and in fact, PAY IN. I’m not kidding), while the larger factory farms get their feed fully paid for and large scale production subsidized.
That does mean you’re probably not actually seeing a penny of price savings from the subsidies. People tend to forget that when blaming subsidies in the price of milk vs plant-milk.
The environmental problems of growing plants isn’t because of the individual plants, it’s because the farming practices used are bad (conventional industrial ag, synthetic fertilizers, monoculture, etc). In a well designed polycultural system, almonds can have their place too. But there is no way to make animal ag sustainable, and since that has both deep ethical and health problems as well - why bother?
Because most plant juice tastes like shit and has the wrong mouth-feel for most things we use cow milk for. Its not rocket surgery.
If this hits market, I’ll be all for it.
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
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.
there is no reason to think farmland would be “recovered” or converted to any less- environmentally destructive use.
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”
this is poisoning the well
If we all went vegan we’d reduce food based emissions by 70
I doubt it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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%
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.
70% of all the crops we grow is to feed our livestock.
that’s a lie
I’m not vegan or even vegetarian, so I feel pretty impartial on this. My partner uses oat milk for their coffee, and over the years I just got used to using it straight, or in cereals, etc. Now I greatly prefer it. It’s just “milk” for me now.
Never thought it would happen, but getting cow milk when I’m out feels off - that mouth-feel you mention; just doesn’t sit right anymore. It really is an acquired taste.
Right there with you. I’ve been living the plant milk life for years at this point and cow milk just tastes so… water-y for lack of a better explanation.
My wife says she can “taste the cow” in the milk, in the same way she could “taste the goat” in goat milk before moving to plant based milks.
I know exactly what she means though, it’s a weird aftertaste that tastes ‘wild’ in the same way you can differentiate wild game from beef or pork.
However, it seems only people who have been off cow milk for a while can identify this element.
Yeah! That’s the perfect way to put it, thank you. It’s like a foreign extra flavour - a certain cowiness that I didn’t notice growing up. Cow milk used to taste like “default milk,” where everything else was a variation on that normal base. But now it’s one of the “other” milks, because I taste it so infrequently.
Seems like it is because the answer isn’t what you said.
They were giving their own answer, genius.
Because lots of people in your country drink it, like it, and even more eat things made from it. Like cheese.
“Two thirds of people can’t tolerate lactose” is utterly fucking meaningless in this context. Most of those are in Asia. Last I checked, it was countries giving out subsidies, not some nebulous world council.
And nearly all farming gets subsidised, because that reduces reliance on external countries. You’ve seen what capitalism did to housing. You don’t want that to happen to food.
Americans are at 36% lactose intolerant. Which is surprisingly, to me anyways, high.
And should corn and cattle get the bulk of the subsidies? If it’s about food alone, maybe not.
Cow milk is delicious.
Why does everyone insist the the Average Joe is responsible for all the disasters but industry is not?
TIL industries create the demand for these products, not consumers
I know you are joking but with how dairy lobbies get subsidies from the gov they kind of are making their own demand.
it’s true! did you just discover bernays?
Do you mean bernaise?
no. Edward Bernays.
Sorry but you got two cows, so you’re obviously a paid shill for big dairy /s
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?
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
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.
What it does have is added calcium, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin D, and a higher protein content than milk
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:
- slightly more protein (8g over 7g)
- potentially easier to absorb calcium
- more sugar in the form of lactase
- less healthy fats
- lactase which most adults cannot process
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.
barely a blip on the Global Warming Radar (6% of total methane from all sources)
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.
we could easily take action to fund offsets and make the dairy industry 100% carbon neutral in the US
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.
nutrient density versus cost, cow’s milk is always going to win
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.
6% of all methane is not a blip, are you kidding?
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.
Offsets are a scam
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.
nutrient density versus cost…
subsidies
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.
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.
Nice. I can’t get either for less than twice that in the US.
“if we’re looking at like the nutrient density versus cost
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.
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.
That “non-accredited” education program is eligible for a variety of continuing education credits.
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.
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.
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?
People who follow more animal-centric diets on the other hand, routinely die faster and more miserably.
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
Like an estimated two-thirds of the world’s population, I don’t digest lactose well,
That number, like all world population numbers is heavily skewed by just how many people are in China. The mutation that causes adults to continue to produce the enzyme to digest lactose is less common among those of Asian descent.
(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.)
…and there are medieval European recipes that call for almond milk, and tofu is made from soy milk and there are written sources referencing it roughly a thousand years old. You’re right, none of these are really new on the scene, aside from maybe oat milk.
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.
I feel like your first paragraph completely ignored this aspect. You squeeze milk out of a cow. Nut and bean milks require grinding the stuff up with a lot of water, mixing it thoroughly, then squeezing the wet pulp through a fine filter (for small batches something like a cheesecloth) to separate the milk from the pulp.
Commercial oat milk requires further processing, because just pulping, mixing with water and straining oats does not produce anything appetizing at all.
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.
That’s not a bad assumption on their part - people who are deeply concerned with the emissions involved in producing their food tend to be richer, in no small part because poor folks are going to put price first, because they have to think about how food fits into their budget more.
Also cheese - you can’t make cheese from plant milks. Well, you can try, but that’s basically how you make tofu, and performing a similar process on other plant milks creates something closer to tofu than cheese.
Further processing? You mean a tiny amount of added sweetener. That’s all that really needs to be added to oat milk.
Plant cheeses are entirely doable, there’s an entire industry of nut-based artisan cheeses. Plants can be fermented as easily as dairy, the only things they’re missing is the highly addictive opioids, osteoporosis (dairy = bone loss), heart disease, and possibly even things like endometriosis and autoimmune diseases.
Further processing? You mean a tiny amount of added sweetener. That’s all that really needs to be added to oat milk.
I mean, many recipes for home creation also include adding amylase to help keep it from having that slimy texture, and potentially either adding nut milk or adding pulverized nuts to the oats to add some creaminess, and also sweetening it.
Plant cheeses are entirely doable, there’s an entire industry of nut-based artisan cheeses.
You can make plant-based cheese analogs, but they are never so simple as “take milk, add coagulant, stir, separate curd from whey, press curd”, which is the basic process for cheese (and for soy milk produces tofu and for many plant milks produces something analogous to tofu).
is the highly addictive opioids,
Casomorphins occur in milk at 200-500 nanograms per liter. For comparison, the most powerful opioid we use (fentanyl) has a standard effective dose of 1000-2000 nanograms per kilogram weight of the patient, and that’s 100 times more powerful than morphine. So, if the opioids occurring in milk were as powerful as fentanyl you would need to drink 2-5 liters per kilogram of weight to achieve a dose, which is such a volume compared to, you know, the size of the human digestive tract as to be absurd (especially when you consider that the opioid peptides naturally occurring in milk are not remotely as powerful as fentanyl).
It does have a higher concentration in cheese, mostly because going from milk->cheese is about a 10:1 ratio by weight, but not all the casomorphins from the milk make it into the curd (some are left in the whey), and not all the casomorphins in the curd survive the process (brining, aging, etc as appropriate for the cheese in question). So at the very highest, if you started from the high end of casomorphins in milk, managed to capture all the casomorphins in the curd, lost none of them in processing, and casomorphins were as powerful as fentanyl you’d only have to eat… 20% of your body weight in cheese to achieve a dose.
There aren’t a lot of drugs that do anything meaningful to an adult human in the quantities that casomorphins are present in milk given the amounts of dairy humans typically consume. We’re talking a scale where the things to compare it to in terms of dose are things like LSD microdosing and botulinum poisoning.
In other words, there’s a reason we don’t use a dairy-rich diet as a replacement for methadone and it’s not that the pharmaceutical industry can’t patent dairy.
osteoporosis (dairy = bone loss),
Do you have any good, reputable studies on this one? Because most studies out there I’ve seen suggest either no effect or exactly the opposite. By comparison, plant milks tend not to be as high in calcium.
Hey, just so you know, that whole lactose intolerance is just hundreds of years of the west drinking milk a lot.
And you can make cheese without milk. Obviously with a different process but Gouda is one of the cheeses that is already replicated very well.Oat milk does not need much processing btw. You can make really good tasting oatmilk at home.
Hey, just so you know, that whole lactose intolerance is just hundreds of years of the west drinking milk a lot.
Like any genetic trait, frequency of lactose tolerance is entirely about selection pressures on your ancestors. Being able to tolerate milk to use it to supplement the diet was more important for survival in Europe and Africa than elsewhere historically. The more your ancestors needed to lean on milk for calories, the more likely the ones who couldn’t didn’t make it, the more common that mutation is in later generations. Same reason why sickle cell is much more common in black folks - having the sickle cell trait also confers a degree of malaria resistance and malaria is historically a bigger pressure on African populations than on many other regions.
Oat milk does not need much processing btw. You can make really good tasting oatmilk at home.
If you’re really careful about how long it’s in the water, how much it’s been blended, and/or you add some amylase to make it less slimy, maybe some nuts to make it creamier, and probably sweeten it a bit. It’s still more involved than “blend nuts with water, pour in filter, press”, which in turn is more involved than “pull on nipple.”
I’m explicitly not hating on plant milks here, but they aren’t a fill in in all applications and for basically any case where the chemical or physical properties of milk are relevant in which case they often need some extra steps involved and even that is assuming the flavor is OK (which depends on the context they are being used in). For example, I find that coconut milk works really well in a lot of dishes from or inspired by food from east Asia or India, but I wouldn’t try having it over a bowl of cereal, and I suspect it wouldn’t work great in coffee or tea either (though I haven’t tried and I find almond milk is pretty OK in coffee but definitely not as good as actual dairy in a strong black tea).
Probably because everyone tried only the shittiest alt-malks, assume they are all bad, and somehow don’t get heartburn and diarrhea and gunky mouth and throat feel from cow milk. I save all my lactose intolerance suffering for cheese and ice cream.
Seriously though it’s the same as people that say only bad things about tofu but have only eaten white American ‘recipes’ that genuinely suck. Meanwhile Asians happily inhaling literal tons of it prepared in actually good meals. Try making bread from scratch without salt (or salty ingredients) and that’s what tofu foods for the white market remind me of.
everyone tried only the shittiest alt-malks
well i dont have 5 euro to dish out on a carton of altmilk every time i want to make an omelette
yall have an excess of money and it shows
More like gurgling stomach pain. That said in most cooking I generally just use cow milk and hope it goes better than drinking it straight. Most of them, even if they claim to be a 1:1 replacement can’t serve the same purpose in a lot of recipes. One time I was doing a midnight pantry raid and made Mac and white cheese with iirc almond milk. It became almost identical to white chocolate melted over noodles.
Hahaha, white people can’t cook, amirite?
Because cows eat corn and cornfields have more power than people in America
So what you’re saying is we need to make cornmilk.
We do, it’s called whiskey.
