Should the FDA require manufacturers of almond, soy, and oat milks to remove the word “milk” from their cartons? Do plant-based companies make a profit with the good name of milk? Is truth in plant-based labeling and fairness at stake? These questions have been at the center of controversy of late, driven by dairy farmer lobby groups and sympathetic lawmakers.
To do more and more plant-based food purchases posing and existential threat for the meat and dairy industry? Is the vegetable industry? milking†
Should the conversation shift to the power of “milk” marketing word choice?
Or is there actually a bigger problem here? Should we, as consumers, be more concerned about whether food and beverages are grown and processed for sustainability and equity?
Should the FDA Focus on Plant Milk Issues?
Are there more important and pressing matters that the FDA should be concerned about right now? Danielle Nierenberg of the food tank says, yes, we should be talking about food safety issues and infant formula shortages.
A blockbuster April 8 research by means of Politics reporter Helena Bottemiller Evich found that “regulating food just isn’t a high priority at the agency, where drugs and other medical products dominate, both in budget and bandwidth — a dynamic that has only been exacerbated during the pandemic.”
But the language of “milk” is getting more media attention.
True or False? The popularity of plant-based milk has meant that dairy farmers have a hard time.
false. Nierenberg says dairy farmers “suffer from years and years of bad policies, subsidies, vigorous business consolidation and overproduction”. While dairy farms are consolidating, chronic milk overproduction was offset by a decrease in consumption. “The push to ensure that oat milk and almond milk are labeled ‘beverages’ rather than ‘milk’ is a waste of time and resources and distracts from the real issues that our policymakers and institutions like the FDA should be addressing,” argues Nierenberg.
Many experts agree (here† hereand here) that the FDA is not meeting the expectations of American consumers regarding food safety and nutrition. What else should the FDA investigate? What about product quality issues? Unsafe food additives? Growth hormones or antibiotics in healthy farm animals? Influence of the pharmaceutical industry? Controversies about data manipulation?
Pulling back the layers of the “milk” controversy
An exhibition that originally appeared in Mother Jones zooms in on the real reason dairy farmers are wary of plant-based drink alternatives.
People drink much less milk than in the fifties, sixties or seventies.
The USDA recognized nearly a decade ago that since 1970, per capita liquid milk consumption has fallen from nearly 1 cup (8 fl. oz.) to 0.6 cups per day. That has the National School Lunch Programwhich still calls for every child to be given fat-free or skimmed milk.
WWF’s Food Waste Warriors Program calculates that in the US alone, as many as 45 million gallons of milk are lost each year in schools.
Research also reveals that a 7-ounce glass of milk produces almost 3 times more greenhouse gases than a glass of rice milk and at least 3 times more than soy, oat or almond milk. It also requires 10 times as much land as oat milk. Even crops that use a lot of water, such as almonds, have about half the amount of water needed to produce the equivalent amount of milk.
Dairy-free alternatives began to gain popularity in the 21st century and now account for 15% of “all dollar retail milk sales,” according to the vegan think tank The Good Food Institute†
Still, Big Dairy can’t blame the rise of alternatives for the continued decline in milk. The numbers tell it all. A 2020 study by USDA researchers found that the “2013 to 2017 increase in plant-based options sales is one-fifth of the decline in Americans’ cow’s milk purchases.” It concluded that “sales of plant-based milk alternatives are contributing to – but not the main cause of – declining cow’s milk sales.”
The language of vegetable drinks
People think about food and drink in terms of what it feels like to consume them, and this leads to craving. Interestingly, dairy farmers are taunting their lobbyists to squash plant-based “milk” formulations, as humans represent food and drink through consumption and reward simulations, especially if those foods and drinks are appealing. In more cases, dairy and animal products are consistently winning positive responses to consumer marketing over plant-based or vegetarian dishes.
It’s been a quarter of a century since “Got Milk?” came into the public consciousness. Early on in milk marketing research, it became clear that consumers felt an emotional connection to the everyday product. As Fast company recorded, during the two decades that Got Milk? dominated the public consciousness, more than 70 commercials ran on television in California alone, and some 350 milk mustache ads ran in print and on TV nationwide — at a time when those two media outlets were still all powerful. Every day, an estimated 80% of all American consumers come into contact with that innocent little question: Got Milk?
The milk got? The campaign’s longevity shows how language focused on the food or dining experience increases the attractiveness of food. food signals, such as words or pictures, can induce rewarding simulations or re-experiences of eating food, which can lead to cravings, especially for more appealing foods. Indeed, viewing food words or pictures activates taste and reward areas in the brain that are reminiscent of tasting food.
Food labels that emphasize sensory and hedonic characteristics (eg, “crunchy”, “decadent”) rather than health characteristics (eg, “high fiber”, “nutritious”) increase the choice and taste of vegetable dishes – presumably because such labels induce rewarding consumption simulations, which then influence actual eating experiences.
Sustainable foods are less likely to be described with indulgent language. Social media posts about animal nutrition, for example, contain language that is likely more appealing to mainstream consumers because it refers to the pleasurable experience of eating the food rather than the food being healthy or confirming identity.
According to a summer study from 2022 in pullthis pattern reflects the polarization around sustainable food, which – unlike the drama of dairy farmers – could hinder the shift to plant-based diets needed to curb climate change.
Sustainable dairy farmers are the role models of the industry
Not all dairy farmers have it difficult. Smaller, organic dairies are succeeding; milk drinking consumers recognize their efforts to protect the environment, dairy farmers and access to a consistent market and pricing.
The Food Revolution Network outlines how concerns about the environment and the future of the dairy industry have led to several partnerships between dairy farmers and companies producing plant-based milk. Hälsa, Miyoko’s Creamery and Swedish oat drinking company Oatly have all announced programs to help dairy farmers transition to crops such as oats and cashews that can be used to make plant-based milk, butter, cheese and yogurt.
Several dairy companies have added plant-based milk to their portfolio. Minnesota-based Live Real Farms launched blends containing 50% dairy milk and 50% almond or oat milk, and HP Hood LLC, one of the largest and oldest dairies in the country, launched Planet Oat Oatmilk in 2019.
After 90 years in the dairy industry, Elmhurst Dairy morphed into Elmhurst 1925 and switched to producing cashew, almond, oat and hemp milks. Heba Mahmoud, vice president of marketing for Elmhurst 1925, attributes the pivot to declining demand for dairy milk and increased consumer interest in plant-based diets.
Do you appreciate the originality of CleanTechnica and the coverage of cleantech? Consider becoming one CleanTechnica member, supporter, technician or ambassador — or a patron on Patreon†
