Upon my arrival at Smith, I observed the widespread availability of non-dairy milks. These milks are not only becoming more popular here in Northampton but according to a Report by Meticulous Research, the plant-based milk market has grown over 11% just in the last year. The adoption of these milk alternatives is driven by an array of motivations including health considerations, taste preferences and environmental consciousness. Particularly among the increasingly environmentally-aware community at Smith, environmental conscientiousness serves as a significant incentive when choosing alternative milks.
However, it is essential to recognize the specific and varying environmental impacts of both traditional and alternative milk production. Not all milks are created equally, so careful consideration should be taken when selecting environmentally responsible options.
To start, why is it that alternative milks are perceived as “environmental-friendly” in comparison to cow’s milk? Dairy milk production often requires nine times more land than plant-based alternatives, especially when allowing a humane amount of space for grazing. Additionally, dairy milk production generates three times more carbon emissions due to factors such as cow-related emissions and processes like pasteurization, homogenization and packaging. Cow milk can also use from two times to up to twenty times as much freshwater as well as result in increased pollution through a process known as eutrophication.
The alternative milks most commonly seen here at Smith are soy, oat and almond milk.
One growing concern with soy milk is that it is encouraging the deforestation of the Amazon, which is known for its strong ecological benefits, including carbon fixation and biodiversity. However, 80% of the soy grown in Brazil is for animal feed rather than human use. So, the most impactful consumption change to avoid supporting deforestation as a Smithie is avoiding cow and animal products. In an article by Hannah Ritchie, “Is our appetite for soy driving deforestation in the Amazon?”, Richie explains that the soy demand is no longer fueling direct destruction of the Amazon due to a recent shift in legislation.
However, the indirect impacts of the increasing use of land for soy are more difficult to measure. These include the shift of deforestation onto other regions of Brazil. The website of the brand of soy milk that Smith dining halls provides, Silk, claims that all of their soybeans are sourced from the US and Canada other than in their vanilla flavor.
Almond milk, while producing fewer emissions and requiring less land than soy, demands a substantial amount of water — approximately 3.2 gallons per almond. Oat milk, on the other hand, uses more water and land than soy, but not by much. It also does produce fewer emissions. So, some may consider it decently “environmentally friendly,” since overall it falls to the lower end of environmental effects.
Pea and hemp milk also are beginning to emerge as environmentally conscious alternatives. These milks do have less research behind them at the moment, but that doesn’t make their impacts any less viable.
Pea milk production has been found to emit a similar amount of emissions and water waste as Soy milk production. They also do not require nitrogen fertilizers, which reduces the impact of the agricultural runoff from these plants.
Hemp milk production has been found to require fewer pesticides and results in less erosion than many agricultural practices. It has been found to use more water than pea, soy, or oat milk but much less than almond milk or cow’s milk. Additionally, all of the parts of the Hemp plant are used in production, which can not be said for most crops.
While there may be no perfect milk, a thoughtful combination of alternatives could represent a pragmatic approach to meet diverse needs. Let’s seize the opportunity to embrace these alternatives responsibly.
However, these two milks are rarely or never found at Smith college. Many of us have seen the QR code around campus for the survey on the dining halls. Let’s consider the environmental implications of our choices and collective influence.
Bibliography
Bombe, Khushal. “Plant-Based Milk Market Worth $42.86 Billion by 2029 – Exclusive Report by Meticulous Research®.” GlobeNewswire News Room, June 24, 2022. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/06/24/2468686/0/en/Plant-based-Milk-Market-Worth-42-86-Billion-by-2029-Exclusive-Report-by-Meticulous-Research.html.
Poirot, Bryce. “Milk Alternatives.” Environmental Center at University of Colorado Boulder, March 7, 2022. https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/07/milk-alternatives.
Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. “Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers.” Science 360, no. 6392 (2018): 987–92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.
Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. “Is Our Appetite for Soy Driving Deforestation in the Amazon?” Our World in Data, October 2, 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/soy.
Ritchie, Hannah. “Dairy vs. Plant-Based Milk: What Are the Environmental Impacts?” Our World in Data, January 19, 2022. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks.
Staff, Edible Brooklyn, Adrian J. Rivera, Julia Sexton, Heather Chin, Kate Mooney, Otis, Eliza Dumais, et al. “Which Plant-Based Milk Is Best for the Environment?” Edible Brooklyn, December 30, 2022. https://www.ediblebrooklyn.com/2020/plant-milks-sustainability/.
Williams, Jena. “Which Milk Alternative Is the Most Eco-Friendly? .” Which Milk Alternative is the Most Eco-Friendly? | Bastyr University, February 28, 2023. https://bastyr.edu/about/news/which-milk-alternative-most-eco-friendly#:~:text=Plant%2Dbased%20milk%20has%20a,come%20in%20a%20recyclable%20container.
