Environmentalists’ favored ‘milk’ can’t beat the real thing, study finds
Matt Lamb
Video Embed
Oat, almond, soy, and coconut “milk” often do not measure up to the real thing, according to a University of Minnesota study.
Professor Abigail Johnson’s research found “[o]nly 12% of the alternative milk products studied had comparable or greater amounts of [calcium, vitamin D, and protein],” according to Health Day News, which reported on a recent presentation by the scholar at an academic conference. The findings have not been published yet in a peer-reviewed journal.
DON’T MOVE BACKWARD ON FREE SPEECH
“Our findings point to a need to ensure that consumers are aware that many plant-based milk alternative products in the marketplace today are not nutritionally equivalent to cow’s milk,” Johnson said. “Product labeling requirements and dietary guidance to the public are among the approaches that may be helpful in alerting and educating consumers.”
Most of the alternatives require added calcium and vitamin D, including “76% of the oat-based products, 69% of soy-based milks and 66% of almond-based alternatives,” according to Health Day’s write-up. While dairy milk is also fortified, the alternatives still fell short after having nutritional support added.
While Johnson said that “consumers should look for plant-based milk alternative products that list calcium and vitamin D as ingredients” and “may also want to consider adding other sources of calcium and vitamin D to their diets,” there is a bigger problem.
It is one thing if individuals freely choose, with full knowledge, to pick a lower-quality alternative. It’s another issue if government policy or public pressure forces consumers that way. “Drink this type of milk to keep you and the planet healthy,” a CNN headline demands.
And the Food and Drug Administration has proposed these alternative drinks can be labeled as “milk.”
While it is true that dairy and cows are subsidized, taxpayers also shell out money for lower-quality products in the form of soy and almonds. For example, there was $4 billion in subsidies to the soy industry in 2020, according to the Agricultural Fairness Alliance. The group notes that soy is hardly environmentally friendly since it often requires no-till or strip-till farming. Even if some of that soy is eaten by livestock, some also go into less nutritional food.
Almonds also receive subsidies from taxpayers. The United States Department of Agriculture allocated millions of dollars through just one program for almond research. In 2022, Blue Diamond, a large nut company, itself received $45 million from the USDA for a “climate smart” program.
Despite the subsidies and inferior alternatives, dairy milk remains a target of environmental activists. British activists in September 2022 blockaded dairy deliveries to advocate for a “sustainable plant-based food system.”
“A plant-based future would restore the British countryside and all the wonderful nature lost to animal farming,” one activist said, according to the Guardian. “A plant-based future would enable massive carbon drawdown and mitigate the worst impacts of the climate crisis.”
A National Geographic writer called milk an “environmental nightmare.”
“Across the board, hands down, plant milks are undeniably the environmentally friendly choice,” a representative from the Good Food Institute stated.
But only real dairy milk is typically as good for you. Society should not sacrifice nutrition in favor of oat or soy, or coconut water, which do not taste as good and are not as good for you.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The Biden administration is concerned about schools buying sweetened dairy, such as chocolate milk. It should be more worried about the watery alternatives to cow’s milk.
Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.