Alongside the gluten-free movement, anti-cow milk messages are increasingly spreading in favor of plant-based milks derived from almonds, coconut, and even turmeric, which can be used to make “milk.” Let’s uncover the social aspects hidden behind the phenomenon of the milk wars.
Last week, dairy producers and industry representatives gathered in Europe at the Congress of the European Dairy Association. Their concerns centered on objectively communicating risks associated with milk consumption and investigating new sustainable and green production methods. Notably, no one was scandalized by the collaboration between national research bodies and milk producers. The former are interested in scientific production, while the latter focus on positioning their product.
But what is the problem with cow’s milk? Let’s break it down. First, it’s said that humans are not designed to drink cow’s milk, as it is unnecessary after weaning and because we are the only animal that drinks milk from another species. Zooarchaeological research concludes that humans have developed, over centuries of milk consumption, an enzyme capable of digesting it (lactase), present in the genes of societies with a history of dairy consumption, such as Northern and Eastern European populations. Asians, however, whose culinary culture did not integrate dairy products, are those with the greatest deficiency of this enzyme. Mexicans are somewhere in the middle. It has been shown that having this enzyme is not a determining factor for digesting milk: many people with high lactase levels still show symptoms of intolerance. What does this tell us? How does the environment inevitably shape the ways in which our genes adapt?
Then comes the story that milk contains hormones. Yes, it obviously has hormones; otherwise, cows, like lactating mothers, would not be able to produce milk. Since the 1990s, the FDA has concluded, based on various studies, that bovine hormones have no effect on humans, but this is curiously one of the social perceptions that continues to circulate twenty years later. From the sociology of risk, the way a risk is communicated is essential to understanding why some issues are more concerning than others.
Many people argue that plant-based milks contain fewer calories, so in reductionist thinking: fewer calories equals less weight. What is not considered is that the high protein content provides greater satiety (if the problem is not feeling full); moreover, the calcium in milk comes in a form that the body absorbs more efficiently. Speaking of content, milk fats also have their social history: the first skim milks began circulating in the United States in the 1960s, in response to scientific studies that blamed saturated fats for all humanity’s woes. And now it is said that fats are not the culprit, but sugars. Ironically, some almond milks contain more sugar than almond. To add more controversy: recent studies published in the European Journal of Nutrition show that the consumption of whole dairy products is inversely associated with obesity.
Then there is the environmental issue: raising dairy cows consumes a large amount of resources, as does almond cultivation. For a single almond, five liters of irrigation water are needed. Given the recent boom in almond milk, there is growing production without sustainable management.
With the milk wars, it’s difficult to conclude what is “least bad,” but what we do understand is that in nutrition, as in all areas of life, everything is relative and depends on the lens through which it is viewed, from where it is viewed, and at what moment.
— This article was originally published in Spanish by Liliana Martínez Lomelí. Translation generated with AI from the original text.