What's the most environmentally-friendly plant-based milk to bake with?

But "the worst" is still the usual reality, Dee. It's an increasingly sensitive topic not suited to this venue to go into with scientific quotes cherry-picked to support one's personal viewpoint ... and not enough room. I've done the research and read the articles you refer to, and a lot of others, with an open mind. But agriculture still needs to slash and burn to raise cattle in South America and Africa, and dairy and beef are still generally cruel practices that require more converted land, and using our finite potable water. Most of America's potable water is spent on cows, and that doesn't even include raising their food. And I've also been a privately Federal and State permitted wildlife rehabilitator for 39 years, so am well-versed in "ecology" and "green" issues, since part of my job is teaching the caring public. Please take this in the spirit it is meant.

The KAF article was confined to vegan ingredient swaps and the environmental impacts of plant milks, it wasn't meant to address the negative human health impacts of mammal milk or meat, or any other ramifications. They just want to test dairy-free alternatives. I'd like to know. Mammal products can cause osteoporosis, general inflammation. They have the slowest transit times. They don't "build strong bones," contrary to a campaign put out long ago by the dairy council, which has a vested interest. Our country has an economic interdependence between dairy, beef, pork, soy and corn which makes it problematic to reduce any of them at the expense of the others... but I'm addressing other issues. Water is "the new oil." It's already being privatized in some places, even though water should be a human right. Almond farms do guzzle a lot of water. Our genetic heritage originally made humans intolerant of mammal milk by age 2 or 3... people who tolerate mammal milk, are genetic mutations! And grass fed cows is a neat idea in theory that reduces some, but not all, environmental impact, but it's unsustainable on a large scale considering the demand of mainstream Americans... it's more for folks who can afford to be elite, who will pay or do anything to avoid changing their lifestyle to one that's a kinder, cheaper, more ethical and greener... one lower down on the food chain. Furthermore, many farmers are learning to leave natural, wild land and forest tracts between their monocultured fields, to support wildlife (including better wild pollinators like solitary bees and other helpful insects) and it supports migratory species in migratory corridors.

Cows will still, even if grass fed entirely or (most likely only near the end), develop mastitis when they've been bred to unnaturally produce so many gallons of milk, they still need antibiotics when it happens even if they follow the rules within a time frame for certified milk again; the farmer needs to remove and sell less productive and sick cows to traditional farmers or the slaughter house, to continue to maintain their certifications; they will still be slaughtered when they no longer produce, they will still be forcibly impregnated to continue making milk, their calves will still be slaughtered as a byproduct of making milk and commercial calves will still be raised isolated during their short lives, on synthetic milk in tiny stalls where they can't even turn around, to keep their flesh pale for veal consumers... Average consumers can't afford special organic grass fed dairy products, and most farmers can't grass raise either meat or dairy cattle if they intend to cut a profit. America isn't Europe. Small farms are disappearing.

Cow milk is meant for baby cows: it has a wide-diameter lipid that mostly doesn't pass through the intestinal walls of humans. And when small farmers fail (as is sadly increasingly happening) and are bought out by big dairy industry, the industry certainly doesn't care about anything but the bottom line, not the suffering involved, which still occurs no matter how you raise cows. Cows produce methane even if grass fed, and we all know the devastating role methane plays in our environmental crisis. Cows' methane is responsible for about one-fourth of our global warming. The carbon sequestration by free ranging cows you're addressing isn't something feasible on a large scale, and wild plants and old growth forests with natural diversification are better at it... you're still taking up a lot of land, much of which is done (most people don't realize) on our public lands, to the detriment of that environment, and cattlemen lease those public lands for just pennies on the dollar due to politics and multimillion-dollar lobbying. The rates they pay haven't changed appreciably. If those cattle and dairymen paid a fair price to lease it, even if the cattle were not damaging the ecosystem or preventing the land from reverting to its natural healthy state... they wouldn't be able to afford to graze the cattle on public lands, and we couldn't afford their products. Grass feeding is great if you've got two cows for personal use... but what're you gonna do with the calves or the methane? How do you sequester methane on an industrial scale? They're presently experimenting with feeding confined cows odd diets to reduce their methane, but it will never eliminate that byproduct. And even the Chinese have an ever increasing population leaving farms for city jobs, with demand for agricultural products purchased from Europe and North America to supplement their own.

Let's call a spade a spade: live animal agriculture in general will always be more wasteful, expensive, cruel and more environmentally damaging no matter what mediation we introduce. We aren't at the top of a simple linear progression of animals: it's firstly not a linear progression, it's "a web that has no weaver," and secondly we are in the middle of a complex food chain and should be eating lower down on it. We've been collecting good scientific evidence for a long time, based on the scientific studies you prefer, that animal product-free diets lead to better health with less medical complications and longer lives, partly due to being vegan/vegetarian and partly due to other lifestyle changes... Entire vegan subcultures in America have been studied long-term including those in Utah. And the Framingham study in New England is still ongoing. There are other studies going on as well about the impact of diet on cancer. 65% of us are obese on a mainstream diet. And as for environmental impact and the ethics of animal farming, search your own soul. Until people are willing to face the touchy issue of ZPG, we must do whatever else we can do, to lessen our global and personal impact. Even grass fed cattle still have more impact than oats, coconuts or soy (animal cruelty and child slavery aside). Animal cruelty and world hunger are important to me. I was a licensed, certified Natural Therapeutics Specialist for many decades, a longtime wildlife rehabilitator, and have been a vegetarian since 1972. I often joke that you'll never see an oat or a soybean hanging onto the edge of a plate screaming "take my sister, don't take me!" ;).

It's important for us to reach a point where we realize we aren't more important than any other sentient being, including humans, and we want to extricate ourselves from causing environmental damage and suffering. It's reaching a tipping point. And it's cheaper to be vegetarian/vegan. And fun! And ultimately, it requires less money and effort to eat lower down on the food chain. More people could be fed, if we all did that. People's demands for meat and dairy usually increases exponentially when a third world country achieves developed world status, but Americans aren't newly industrialized, and there are better ways to live that extricate us from the cycle of cruelty, damage and expensive threatened health. Some habits are meant to be broken, for the sake of the lesser advantaged and vulnerable. It's been said you can determine the degree of civilization of a society by how they treat their animals. And getting off the dairy/meat wheel isn't a weird fad any more, it's mainstream. I never said I didn't like pecorino Romano or pepperjack, and we all know bacon is a "gateway drug,". LOL! And some people just want to try being dairy free, while those who can't handle dairy want to start being included in recipes.

I'm glad KAF has been delving into it and testing recipes for us, something new to keep us interested in baking. They're being inclusive. And I'm always looking for dairy-free bakes because I know someone who can't eat dairy or chocolate (bummer!), and it's hard to find good recipes I can bake for her. Carob powder and chips sub for chocolate, but KAF is teaching me what to sub for dairy! Yay! I thought the essays were impartial and timely. It isn't their job to be political or quote scientific research. But I've read that 4% of Americans are now vegan, it's gone mainstream, and KAF's trying to accommodate them, too. I felt the need to respond to your observations. I never proselytize my own dietary choices, dislike when fanatics of any kind do that to me... but I do provide information when asked. ;)

• Reply