
America's never-ending obsession with milk, explained in 8 charts
And now, add to the list: Cow's milk is back. Sort of.
Last year, US dairy producers sold about 0.8 percent more milk than in 2023, according to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics, the first year-over-year increase since 2009, when milk prices were historically low. That may not sound like much, but it's a big deal for the dairy industry, which has seen a sustained drop in both per capita and total US milk consumption over the last few decades. Raw milk, which has not been pasteurized to kill pathogens, has seen double-digit growth, a concerning trend given its potential to spread life-threatening infections, though it still makes up a very small share of overall milk sales.
Meanwhile, non-dairy milks — the kind made from soybeans, oats, almonds, and other plants — have stumbled, declining by about 5 percent in both dollar and unit sales over approximately the last year, according to data shared with Vox by NielsenIQ and data reported elsewhere from the market research firm Circana.
A small uptick in cow's milk intake is, obviously, not tantamount to the calamities that have been unleashed over the last six weeks in American politics. But it does likely sprout, at least in part, from the same vibe shift that's given us butter-churning, homestead-tending tradwives, an unscientific turn against plant-based foods, and a movement to destroy public trust in vaccines.
After achieving ubiquity in the 2010s and early 2020s, plant-based milks may have lost their cool, nonconformist quality — much like how, after more than a decade of liberal cultural supremacy, embracing authoritarian revanchism now feels like countercultural rebellion.
The problem is that cow's milk is not, unfortunately, just a harmless dietary preference — it's land-intensive, water-intensive, climate-warming, and incredibly cruel to cows. Dairy cows contribute more than 10 percent of US methane emissions, a super-potent greenhouse gas, and their land use, while not nearly as great as that of beef farming, is still high, occupying land that could otherwise be freed up for carbon-sequestering ecosystems. To mitigate climate change, our dairy consumption needs to go down, not up.
It's too early to tell whether the growth in milk sales is a temporary blip or a genuine turning point; Dotsie Bausch, executive director of Switch4Good, a group that advocates for moving away from dairy consumption, told me she's optimistic it's the former. And all this comes amid another important shift: America's top coffee chains, including Starbucks, Dunkin', Dutch Bros, Tim Hortons, and Scooter's — very large buyers of milk — have all in recent months dropped their extra charges for adding plant-based milks to drinks, a change that animal rights groups, led by Switch4Good, had demanded for years.
That change makes it anywhere from 50 cents to $2 less expensive to choose plant milks over cow's milk, and will likely nudge some customers to choose more planet-friendly plant-based options. Still, while economic incentives do matter for milk consumption, as we're increasingly seeing, they're not the whole story.
If you really think about it, it's weird that we drink dairy milk — the milk that cows, like all mammals, make for their babies.
There's no compelling reason to think humans need to drink milk after infancy, much less the milk of another species. Nevertheless, thanks to many years of 'pseudo-scientific theories that exalted drinking-milk to permanent and unquestioned superfood status,' as culinary historian Anne Mendelson put it in her book Spoiled: The Myth of Milk as Superfood , cow's milk consumption became practically compulsory in the US, peaking in 1945 at 45 gallons per person, or about two cups per day. And that's only counting straight cow's milk, not other dairy products made from it like cheese, butter, or ice cream, which added a lot more — ice cream consumption peaked in 1946, at 23 pounds per person.
After World War II, fluid milk intake plummeted, falling to less than half a cup per person per day on average in 2019. It's important to keep these trends in perspective, however: More than 90 percent of US households still buy cow's milk, while less than half buy plant-based milk; plant milk sales are still way lower than sales of cow's milk. And even as cow's milk in fluid form became less popular, overall dairy intake in the US has only increased since the 1970s, driven by growing consumption of cheese, butter, and yogurt.
So why might drinking cow's milk be coming back? The most persuasive hypotheses boil down to three things: price, perception, and protein.
The first one is pretty obvious: Consumers are angry about inflation, struggling with high grocery bills, and switching to lower-cost options. Conventional dairy milk — the kind that makes up more than 90 percent of the cow's milk market and comes in clear, hard-plastic jugs with brightly colored caps — is generally cheaper than any plant-based milk you can get. The cheap soy milk I buy is still more than twice the cost by volume of the cheapest cow's milk at my grocery store.
If you know anything about how resource-intensive cow's milk is to produce, its low cost might seem counterintuitive. Part of that is because the costs are externalized elsewhere: Cows have been bred to produce immense volumes of milk over the last century, which has brought down the cost while taking a heavy toll on their welfare. Most milk today comes from mega dairies, which benefit from economies of scale by confining thousands or even tens of thousands of cows in one place, but these operations are known for spreading pollution and foul odors to nearby communities.
Dairy is also much higher in greenhouse emissions than plant-based foods with comparable nutrition, and much more water-intensive, contributing to water scarcity in arid Western states like California, the nation's top dairy producer. But the dairy industry, as well as those that grow crops to feed cows, gets to use all that water at low cost, a classic 'tragedy of the commons,' UC Davis agricultural economist Richard Sexton told me.
Soy milk, while far less resource-intensive than dairy, has higher manufacturing costs, and hasn't benefited from the decades of US government-subsidized R&D that have lowered the cost of cow's milk, nor from the dairy industry's scale efficiencies. The cost of the soy used to make soy milk is also shaped by competition with other, much larger, uses of soybeans, Sexton said. Most soy grown in the US is fed to farmed animals, while another chunk is used to make subsidized biofuels.
Soy milk, which has been consumed in East Asia for centuries, is almost too good to be true — but at just 1 percent of the US milk market, it doesn't get enough credit. It's packed with protein and (assuming you get a fortified variety) essential nutrients, low in saturated fat, and much lower in sugar than milk.
The federal government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans recognize fortified soy milk as an appropriate substitute for cow's milk. I think it's an even better choice, kinder to both the planet and to cows. If you haven't had it before, soy milk might taste different from what you're used to, but it has a satisfying, full-bodied texture and nutty flavor. And don't worry about whatever you may have heard about the supposed dangers of soy — it's been debunked. It's literally a bean, and we can all use more of that in our diets.
But look closer at the data, and the price explanation for dairy milk's rebound becomes a lot more complicated. Organic milk sales grew by 7 percent by volume from 2023 to 2024 — about 19 times faster than conventional milk did over the same period. And organic cow's milk is significantly pricier than conventional; often, it's more expensive than plant-based milks. Lactose-free milk, which is also costlier than regular milk, saw huge gains, too, with many new buyers switching from less-expensive plant-based milks.
One factor might simply be taste and feel, Chris Costagli, vice president for food insights at NielsenIQ, told me. Consumers seem to be trying to incorporate more fats in their diets: Rich, full-bodied whole milk, which has been rising in popularity as low-fat milks decline, may be gaining appeal compared to almond milk, the most popular plant milk, which is runny and low in calories.
And then there's the hazier but crucial element of consumer perceptions — in other words, vibes.
Americans are increasingly skeptical of so-called ultra-processed foods, an ill-defined, unrigorous concept that I covered back in December. Most plant-based milks fall into that category, putting them on the wrong side of today's culture war, which has swung toward the regressive and anti-modern.
Consumers find the ingredient lists of cow's milk — which is often just 'milk' and added vitamins — simpler and easier to understand than those of plant milks, Costagli said, and they also might feel that they're getting a better value. 'The first ingredient on dairy milk is milk. The first ingredient on plant-based is water,' he said. That's true — but cow's milk is also overwhelmingly comprised of water. A more detailed ingredient list might look like this: Water, milk fat, casein, whey, lactose, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, estrogen, progesterone, Insulin-like Growth Factor 1. Novel foods suffer from the perception of being 'unnatural' and mechanized regardless of their actual health impacts.
I'm reminded of what 20th-century philosopher Walter Benjamin wrote in his essay 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,' arguing that in an era of mass production, objects lose their 'aura,' or uniqueness and authenticity. Cow's milk, particularly the kind that's marketed as unadulterated and close to the source, like organic, appeals to a sense of lost aura by promising to reconnect consumers with something ancient and primal — a living, breathing animal, the very opposite of a machine.
But this fatally misunderstands the nature of modern dairy farming, which one could reasonably define as the process of turning an animal into a milk-making machine. Organic dairy does have some standards that are better for animal welfare, including a requirement for cows to have access to pasture for at least 120 days per year, although organic dairy has been gamed and industrialized to such an extent that it often resembles conventional mega dairies.
More fundamentally, though, there's no guarantee that organic dairy cows are treated humanely because both organic farms and conventional mega dairies rely on the same business model: Putting cows through repeated, taxing cycles of insemination, pregnancy, and lactation, separating them from their calves so that humans can take their milk, and then sending them to slaughter at a young age when their health and productivity decline. Organic dairy is not meaningfully better for the environment, either.
There's one more factor we need to consider to understand what's happening in the cow's milk market: America's obsession with protein. Most types of plant milk, including oat, almond, and coconut, are significantly lower in protein than cow's milk. That might explain why sales of soy milk — which is higher in protein as a share of calories than either whole, reduced fat, or low-fat cow's milk — have remained stable, while low-protein almond milk has seen the steepest declines.
Some companies have even introduced 'ultra-filtered' cow's milk that's higher in protein than regular milk. The Coca-Cola-owned milk brand Fairlife, which has seen massive growth in recent years thanks to the popularity of its high-protein products, was recently the subject of an undercover investigation by the animal advocacy group Animal Rescue Mission. The group found appalling animal abuse at two Fairlife supplier farms in Arizona, including cows and calves being beaten, dragged, chained, and shot. A 2019 investigation found similar abuse at another Fairlife supplier, and Coca-Cola in 2022 settled lawsuits alleging that it falsely advertised Fairlife milk as coming from humanely raised cows.
'The mistreatment of animals depicted in the recent videos is unacceptable. Effective immediately, our supplier, United Dairymen of Arizona (UDA), has suspended delivery of milk from these facilities to all UDA customers,' Fairlife told Vox in a statement. 'We have zero tolerance for animal abuse. Although we operate as milk processors and do not own farms or cows, we mandate that all our milk suppliers adhere to stringent animal welfare standards, and we expect nothing less.'
So what kind of milk should people drink if they care about nutrition and animal welfare? The perfect milk for most people is made of soybeans.
Soy milk is not just high-protein, but also lower in saturated fat than any type of cow's milk except skim, much lower in sugar (make sure you get an unsweetened variety), and even has fiber, which, unlike protein, Americans are actually deficient in. If you get a fortified variety, like the leading soy milk brand Silk, you also get calcium, vitamin D, and other essential nutrients.
If you're accustomed to cow's milk, soy might just taste different. Myths about adverse health effects from soy have been debunked; unless you have an allergy, there's no reason to be afraid of it. To the contrary, soy is simply a bean, and one of the best sources of protein out there.
Soy milk is also unequivocally better for the environment than dairy, isn't made with animal abuse, and as a plus, won't help start the next pandemic. The US federal dietary guidelines recognize fortified soy milk as an appropriate substitute for cow's milk.
Despite this, it is, strangely, the official policy of the US government to promote cow's milk consumption and protect it from changing consumer preferences — an outdated vestige of 20th-century agricultural policy that punishes plant-based foods at a time when we most need them.
Seen in this light, the perceived resurgence of cow's milk may really just be one more example of the re-entrenchment of the status quo. Although it's seeing a bit of a renaissance, cow's milk has never not been mainstream. The truest form of cultural rebellion has always been to simply avoid it.
And please, whatever you do, don't drink raw milk.
This story originally appeared in the Processing Meat newsletter. Sign up here!
You've read 1 article in the last month
Here at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.
Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.
We rely on readers like you — join us.
Swati Sharma
Vox Editor-in-Chief See More: Animal Welfare
Climate
Culture
Food
Future Perfect

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Another State Looks To Ban Junk Food From SNAP Benefits
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves has said his state may block the purchase of unhealthy foods using SNAP benefits. Newsweek has contacted Reeves' office for comment via email outside regular working hours. Why It Matters So far in 2025, a slew of states have either barred or are in the process of restricting what Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries can buy using their benefits. Advocates for restricting SNAP purchases argue that cutting unhealthy foods from the program will improve public health, with the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement leading the charge. Opponents counter that such limits dictate the diets of low-income Americans while overlooking deeper problems related to accessing affordable, nutritious food. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in Mississippi, some 384,800 people collect SNAP benefits, representing 13 percent of the state's population. What To Know Reeves, a Republican, said of restricting SNAP benefits, "It is on my radar," SuperTalk Mississippi Media reported on Wednesday. According to the outlet, he also discussed the idea with Health and Human Services Secretary Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spearheaded the MAHA movement, at the National Governors Association summer meeting. "I spent some time with my fellow governors a week or two ago," Reeves said. "We also had meetings with Secretary Kennedy while we were at the conference, very productive meetings, and that is something we are looking into." Republican Governor Tate Reeves speaks with supporters during an election night watch party at the Refuge Hotel & Conference Center in Flowood, Mississippi, on November 7, 2023. Republican Governor Tate Reeves speaks with supporters during an election night watch party at the Refuge Hotel & Conference Center in Flowood, Mississippi, on November 7, 2023. Brandon Bell/GETTY SNAP Changes Across the U.S. So far this year, 12 states have approved plans to restrict SNAP benefits. While the program is administered by states, it is overseen and largely paid for by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). To make amendments to SNAP, states are required to send waiver requests to the federal agency for approval. Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have all had their waiver requests approved. Tennessee and South Carolina have indicated that they are in the process of making similar requests to the USDA. Beginning in 2026, the approved waivers are set to prohibit certain foods from being purchased with electronic benefit transfer cards, which are reloaded monthly for use at participating grocery stores nationwide. Not all the new restrictions are the same. For example, in Colorado, Utah and West Virginia, only soft drinks and/or soda would no longer be purchasable with SNAP. In numerous other states, the restriction also extends to candy. What People Are Saying USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in an August 4 news release regarding states with approved waivers: "It is incredible to see so many states take action at this critical moment in our nation's history and do something to begin to address chronic health problems. President Trump has changed the status quo, and the entire cabinet is taking action to Make America Healthy Again. At USDA, we play a key role in supporting Americans who fall on hard times, and that commitment does not change. Rather, these state waivers promote healthier options for families in need." Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in the news release: "For years, SNAP has used taxpayer dollars to fund soda and candy—products that fuel America's diabetes and chronic disease epidemics. These waivers help put real food back at the center of the program and empower states to lead the charge in protecting public health. I thank these governors who have stepped up to request waivers, and I encourage others to follow their lead. This is how we Make America Healthy Again." Valerie Imbruce, the director of the Center for Environment and Society at Washington College, previously told Newsweek: "Controlling how the poor eat is a paternalistic response to a problem that is not based in SNAP recipients' inability to make good decisions about healthy foods, it is a problem of the price differential in choosing healthy or junk foods. Soda and candy are much cheaper and more calorie dense than 100 percent fruit juices or prebiotic non-artificially sweetened carbonated beverages, thanks to price supports and subsidies by the federal government to support a U.S. sugar industry." What Happens Next Reeves' comments suggest that Mississippi has not formally requested a waiver from the USDA. It remains to be seen whether the state will do so.


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
It's not just DC: Republicans seem happy to let Trump do whatever he wants
For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about President Trump's invasion of an American city. I'm starting to wonder when our government's checks and balances will kick in – or if they will at all. On Monday, Aug. 11, President Donald Trump announced he would be deploying the National Guard in Washington, DC, and taking over the city's police force "to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' The troops began showing up on Tuesday evening. According to Trump, violent crime is up in the nation's capital, and he's the only one who can rescue the city from societal collapse. It's a convenient narrative, one that feeds into MAGA's perception of him. For the rest of us, it's a terrifying move that shows he is willing to test the limits of presidential oversight. But while Trump's hostile takeover of DC public safety is concerning on its own, it's more alarming that Republicans in Congress are letting him do this with seemingly no regard for what is ethical. Even if this deployment is legal, there are certain lines that presidents should not cross. This is one of them. And I have to ask. Would Republicans be sitting on their hands if a Democratic president were doing everything that Trump is doing? I would hope not, but here we are. Of course, Trump is lying about crime in DC Trump seems to have called in the military after an assault on a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer on Aug. 3. While it's horrible that a government employee was attacked, Trump's declaration that Washington is crime-infested and dangerous doesn't align with reality. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime is down 26% compared with last year. In fact, 2024 marked a 30-year low for violent crime in Washington, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Per a New York Times analysis, the homicide rate in 2023 was 40.4 per 100,000 people, the highest rate in 20 years. But that rate declined in 2024, down to 26.6 per 100,000 people. And homicides in the city continue to decline in 2025. While Trump is correct in saying this rate is higher than those of Mexico City and Bogotá, Colombia, it doesn't paint the full picture. A federal takeover is an extreme reaction. It doesn't matter, of course, that violent crime in the city is down overall this year. That wouldn't fit in with the Trumpian narrative, the one where he's the hero saving tourists and locals alike from violent crime. Are you worried about crime? Do you feel safe where you live? Tell us. | Opinion Forum Who even asked for this? It wasn't DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. All of this is happening to the dismay of Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser, who noted on the Aug. 12 edition of 'The Breakfast Club' that the militarization of the city will instill fear in its residents. '(Trump) wants to send the message to cities that if he can get away with this in Los Angeles, if he can get away with this in DC, he can get away with it in New York, or Baltimore or Chicago, or any other place where millions of people live, work and are doing everything the right way,' Bowser said on the radio show. Bowser is right, this is an escalation. It's Trump's way of showing everyone in Democratic parts of the country that he has the final say and that he isn't afraid to use the military to his advantage. Trump is a bully. He's using the National Guard to conquer DC as a test run. | Opinion Will Republicans hold Trump accountable for anything? For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about Trump's invasion of an American city. In fact, it seems that many are supportive of the move. If a Democratic president were to try to do this, the Republican Party would decry authoritarianism's arrival in the United States. But because it's Trump, there has been zero pushback. Just like his tariff plan that's costing everyday Americans, the failed Elon Musk overhaul of the federal government, the deployment of soldiers against citizens in Los Angeles and his ruthless immigration agenda that includes trying to erase due process, the GOP is letting him get away with all of it. Republicans may even be happy about it. Imagine if Joe Biden did any of that? The Republican pearl-clutching would be generational. But this is fine because it's their king. Trump is considering extending the troop deployment beyond 30 days, something he will need congressional approval for. This seems entirely plausible, even likely, because of the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. I'm hesitant to throw the F-word – fascism – around, but if the Trump administration continues down this path, I worry that the rights we have as Americans will slip away. Who's stopping the president from deploying troops to other cities in the United States? It certainly isn't going to be Congress. There's some hope for the Supreme Court, but it has a 6-3 conservative majority. All of this is happening within the first year of Trump's return to the White House. There's no telling what the next three years will bring if this is how he's starting out. There should be firm lines that presidents do not cross – there are some things that are not appropriate or reasonable for a president to do. Yet that line keeps getting moved by Republicans, who don't seem to care as long as their conservative agenda is being implemented. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Arctic Could Form Key Part of Ukraine Ceasefire Talks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A ceasefire in Ukraine will be the focus for Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump when they meet in Alaska, but cooperation between Russia and the United States in the Arctic would also be a salient topic for discussion, a regional expert has told Newsweek. Andreas Østhagen, from the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo, said Anchorage is the natural location for the presidents to discuss the surrounding strategic region, which is drawing increasing attention from both countries. He said that oil and gas exploration, developing the Northern Sea route, and fishing are areas of mutual interest that could be discussed. Why It Matters Both Russia and the U.S. have prioritized the Arctic, making it a natural topic for a summit held in Alaska, which is the gateway to the region where the Bering Strait is a direct maritime passage between the Pacific and Arctic Oceans. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty What To Know The Russian and American presidents will meet at the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage on Friday, during which the Trump administration will hope for a breakthrough in the Russia-Ukraine war. As well as the war in Ukraine, Østhagen said that Russia could discuss developing the Northern Sea route (NSR) into a commercial traffic lane, which is a Russian project that the U.S. plays a part in but is not the primary driver of. The NSR, which goes along the Arctic coastline, is the shortest shipping route between the western part of Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region, and its strategic value chimes with Trump's statements about Greenland, which he wants to acquire. Through it sail container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers transporting minerals and ores, and vessels servicing oil, gas and mining operations in Alaska and Siberia. It is becoming more navigable due to global warming. Under the Biden administration and Trump's first administration, efforts were made to expand collaboration between Russia and the U.S., focusing on enabling safer traffic through the Bering Strait, which divides Alaska from Russia, said Østhagen, who is also a senior fellow at the Arctic Institute. "If any shipping traffic takes that shortcut between Europe and Asia, it has to go via the Russian Arctic and via the Bering Strait," Østhagen said. The Bering Sea is also home to some of the most profitable fish stocks in the world, where not only Russia and the U.S. are actively fishing, but also other countries like China. There are potential plans for oil and gas development in the Arctic, and joint exploration in shared areas like the Chukchi Sea, north of the Bering Strait, could be considered, though profitability and political factors will influence such projects. "There's a lot to talk about in terms of practical functional cooperation, first and foremost to try to set up shipping or more oil and gas exploration in the Arctic," said Østhagen. What People Are Saying Andreas Østhagen, research director of Arctic and Ocean Politics at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, told Newsweek: "The fact that both presidents have put the Arctic high on their agendas would make Alaska a natural point to discuss the region." "Russia perhaps could offer developing the Northern Sea route into a viable commercial traffic lane that's a Russian project, which the U.S. plays a part in, but is not the primary driver of," he said. What Happens Next The White House has described Friday's summit in Anchorage as a "listening exercise," for Trump. Before then, European leaders are likely to push for the U.S. to keep Ukraine's interests in mind.