Imagine you are standing in line at Animas Perks, midterms have passed, and to celebrate, you are dreaming of that first sip of a creamy oat milk latte. Yet, as you reach the register, reality hits, and you are reminded that opting for this eco-friendly alternative comes at a price — almost a dollar more, to be exact. This everyday scenario touches on broader systemic issues related to public health, environmental policy and consumer freedom. While choosing a base for your latte order may seem rather arbitrary, behind the scenes, certain industry leaders and government officials are quietly vying for your support.
This piece will examine the environmental impact of our food choices and the complex factors behind the pricing of plant-based milk alternatives. We will explore how industry lobbying efforts and government regulation can influence what’s accessible and affordable for students striving to make environmentally conscious choices.
Subsidies are tax-funded government payments that benefit particular groups of people or business sectors. Agricultural subsidies, administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), are often aimed at supporting staple crops like corn, soy and dairy. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, the agricultural sector receives billions of dollars in financial aid annually. These subsidies help stabilize prices and ensure a steady supply. However, they can also distort the market by making these products artificially cheaper compared to unsubsidized commodities like oats, almonds or rice.
Political lobbying can also play an important role in determining the price of sustainable plant-based milk alternatives. Lobbying refers to a practice where delegates representing particular industries attempt to influence politicians in order to achieve favorable outcomes. The meat and dairy industries provide a clear example. In the United States, agricultural groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Milk Producers Federation have formed coalitions and lobbied for policy decisions that directly benefit their industries. According to HB 119, a bill approved by Virginia legislators, the word ‘milk’ would be banned from being put any products not derived from the lacteal secretions of a “healthy hooved mammal.”
The dairy lobby has also effectively leveraged advertisements as a way of maintaining the industry’s cultural relevance and public support. A notable example is the ‘Got Milk’ campaign funded by organizations like the Dairy Farmers of America, which has famously collaborated with A-list celebrities adorned with milk mustaches. While these efforts have primarily been aimed at boosting dairy consumption, the enduring visibility and cultural influence of such campaigns have naturally positioned dairy milk as a central dietary staple, indirectly impacting the competitive landscape for emerging dairy alternatives.
Despite dairy’s cultural dominance and market presence, plant-based alternatives have seen considerable market growth in recent years, largely driven by growing consumer interest in environmental sustainability and public health concerns. According to a comprehensive analysis done by Our World in Data, any plant-based milk alternative will use less land, less water, and generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions than traditional cow’s milk. These findings were backed up by Kathy Hilimire, an associate professor who leads the Regenerative Food Systems certificate, but they are not all that surprising, either. Back in 2006, the United Nations released a 390-page report titled, “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” It was the first ever large-scale investigation of animal agriculture’s environmental impact, describing the livestock sector as “one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity.”
In the years following that report, Big Ag has doubled down on their efforts to improve public perceptions and downplay their contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions through the distribution of fact sheets and research papers funded by the industry themselves. In practice, this means paying for the establishment of research centers and facilitating reports done at prominent universities. A recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change revealed that the animal agriculture industry is now involved in multi-million-dollar efforts with multiple universities to obstruct unfavorable legislation and influence climate change policy and discourse. These political and economic chess maneuvers directly impact the cost and availability of dairy products and their plant-based competitors. When the shelf price for oat milk goes up as a result of having less government aid, it makes sustainable food options less accessible and more expensive for consumers, including students.
While the decisions themselves might happen in boardrooms far, far away, their tangible effects can be felt much closer to home. At Animas Perks, the menu lists almond and soy milk under ‘extras,’ placing them in the same category as additional shots and flavored syrups. This labeling allows them to mirror the approach of leading coffee chains by charging 79 cents more for plant-based alternatives, thus accounting for the higher shelf price.
Additionally, it’s possible that options like oat milk might suffer from a lack of visibility due to their absence from the listed menu. Alec Carr, a criminal justice student employed at the cafe, chalks this up as mostly a supply chain issue — certain brand names like Silk tend to come in less consistently compared to cow’s milk, which is a staple ingredient in the kitchen. This presents challenges with having a set in stone menu, and so they choose not to show the complete list, he said. Despite these challenges, Carr pointed out that the plant-based milks have seen a steady demand. He also noted that baristas at Animas Perks are trained to offer and promote the sustainable option whenever they are available, and that the biggest thing for improving accessibility would be purchasing more of the alternatives, which tend to run out at least once or twice a week.
“We run through them just like regular milk,” Carr said. “I mean, obviously, the regular milk is more popular than them, but, you know, you see a lot more orders with almond milk, soy milk, all those ones — more than you'd think.”
This popularity despite the increase in price might suggest a growing fondness for plant-based alternatives on campus. Hilimire has done extensive research analyzing campus-wide sustainability trends. In 2020, a study done with Carl Schnitker assessed student preferences for ‘real food’ at FLC. The study found that real food, defined as ecologically sound, local, humane and fair, was important to respondents, but not as important as other attributes like taste, health and price. It also showed two-thirds of students were willing to pay more for real food as long as they remained relatively convenient and accessible. Assuming these findings are true, the current system in the Student Union would seem rather backwards. If Animas Perks’ aim is to encourage the more sustainable plant-based offerings, then wouldn’t it make more sense to offset their cost using subsidies, or incentivize a switch by including a premium on the more popular dairy option? As Hilimire points out, it isn’t as though the school has been a passive bystander when it comes to addressing environmental concerns within campus dining:
“The Real Food Challenge set an expectation that FLC would engage with sustainability in Dining Services, which is wonderful,” Hilimire said in an email, adding that, “Nowadays, we have our own vision for what sustainability looks like in dining at FLC.”
Since parting with the national Real Food Challenge certification program, the school has set their own goals and benchmarks for evaluating progress, which are made publicly available through the college’s Climate and Sustainability Action Plan (CSAP). Adopted this past December, the plan documents ongoing environmental strategies pertaining to food, water and energy, among other areas. It also establishes metrics for increasing students’ environmental literacy. The CSAP’s conclusion encapsulates a stark yet forward-thinking vision for FLC’s campus community, striving to reduce their environmental impact without compromising the needs of future generations. This sentiment not only reinforces the school’s stated commitment to responsible stewardship, but acknowledges the responsibility that higher education institutions have in responding to climate change.
For what it’s worth, there are many examples of FLC’s long-standing efforts in this regard, particularly when it comes to creating sustainable food systems. The Old Fort Farm, which was originally the site of the Fort Lewis Indian Boarding School, today offers a Farmer-in-Training, as well as an Incubator Program for aspiring farmers and ranchers. Both programs teach regenerative farming practices and collectively serve as the primary source of local food for our dining hall.
The Grub Hub is another example. Located in the Student Union, they offer support services to students, including equal access to free, locally-sourced food as well as housing assistance. These services play a pivotal part in increasing accessibility and addressing affordability issues. The pantry also works with our catering partner, Sodexo, to offer hot meals to students Tuesdays to Thursdays, as well as helping them get more meal swipes as needed, said Daelyn Benally, a Basic Needs case manager who works at the Grub Hub. They sometimes give out ‘veggie bucks,’ which students can use to procure fresh produce at either the Old Fort Farm, located in Hesperus, Colorado, or the Farm Stand, which is on campus weekly in the summer and fall. While the Grub Hub primarily works with nearby, small-scale ranchers and producers, Benally said they also depend on larger distributors, like the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry, which according to the organization’s website, encompasses some 72,000 developed acres and more than 10 facilities, all owned and operated by the Navajo (Diné) Nation. Through this partnership, the food pantry offers culturally-diverse foods like fry bread mix and Bow and Arrow blue cornmeal.
By supporting small-scale gardening projects like the Environmental Center’s Food Forest, and adopting a table-to-farm compost system in the dining hall, the school not only minimizes food waste and supports local agriculture, but, according to Professor Ruth Alminas, a political science expert at FLC, contributes to the global effort to create more sustainable and resilient food systems, mirroring the Sustainable Development Goals outlined by the United Nations.
All this to say, FLC has been an active participant so far in the discussion on developing effective mitigation strategies. But if sustainability is indeed such a high priority for our self-professed ‘Ecosystem of Education,’ then why cry over spilled oat milk?
Even with global data showing that plant-based milks are better for the planet, and research from our own community highlighting price and convenience as key drivers for students’ decision-making, dairy still rules the day for Campus Dining Services. With the wellbeing of future generations in mind, perhaps it’s high time that FLC reassert their commitment to environmentally friendly practices and carry the mantle of creating a greener future: end the plant-based milk upcharge.