I personally do not consume any animal products (including whey protein powder), but wanted to share some points from a discussion I recently had.

(I know whey protein is technically not vegan, as it’s an animal product, but there’s an argument that it might be animal-welfare neutral or even environmentally beneficial.)

Here are the key points:

  • Whey is a byproduct of cheesemaking, where only 10-20% of milk is used for cheese, and 80-90% is expelled as whey. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224421005124)
  • About 50% of all milk production goes to cheesemaking, meaning there’s a lot of whey produced. Farmers often dispose of it by dumping it as fertilizer or feeding it to animals (mainly pigs).
  • Whey disposal is environmentally problematic, to the point where it’s been called “the most important environmental pollutant of the dairy industry,” with 47% of it being dumped directly into drains. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8284110/#sec18)

So, on one hand, buying whey protein creates demand for whey processing, which could be environmentally positive. Without this market, more whey would likely be wasted, causing significant environmental harm.

On the other hand, the money ultimately supports the cheesemaking industry, which profits from animal exploitation. Even if buying whey doesn’t directly increase suffering in the short term, it helps sustain an industry that does.

Is it obvious that whey is a net negative? Could someone who’s vegan for environmental reasons justify consuming whey protein? I haven’t found any solid estimates comparing the environmental damage averted by consuming whey to the social cost of indirectly supporting cheesemaking.

Would love to hear some thoughts on this!

13

1
0

Reactions

1
0
Comments8


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

If what you're saying is true, why is whey protein so expensive?

My quick guess is that turning something from a "waste product" to a "certified-safe supplement for human consumption" is still costly.

Isn't it one of the cheapest forms of protein?

If it's literally a waste product, I don't see why that should matter. The costs should just be for processing and transportation, which would also apply to ordinary milk? Yet in my area whey protein powder costs about 30x as much as milk per unit weight.

What I don’t understand is why the excess whey isn’t already used primarily as animal feed instead of being dumped down the drain. Did you come across any reason for this? My first guess would be that many of the smaller operations don’t have the equipment or capacity to store or process whey. 

If this is the case, it seems likely that increasing human consumption of whey could just raise the price of the product. This could potentially even divert supply from the market for animal feed. My initial thought is that “recycling” the product back into animal ag could be more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Instead of shipping, processing, and packaging it for individual consumption it could be ordered in bulk for animal feed (which also has fewer processing/regulatory requirements). Curious about your thoughts on this as my arguments here are mostly speculative.

You can buy whey made from precision fermentation (PerfectDay). That changes several elements of your post, particularly the claim that whey is necessarily not vegan.

I spent some time looking into this since it was not obvious to me how to buy from Perfect Day. Looks like the only retail partner who sells their whey protein powder is Myprotein, most retailers sell things like ice cream.

I wish it were easier to buy PerfectDay and similar products, but I guess it makes early business sense to target food manufacturers rather than end consumers. It's cool you can get it from Myprotein -- I tried the caramel flavor but found the flavoring overwhelming. Sad that there's no unflavored option. Maybe the animal free version still has some off flavors compared to the animal derived version?

Curated and popular this week
Jim Chapman
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
By Jim Chapman, Linkedin. TL;DR: In 2023, I was a 57-year-old urban planning consultant and non-profit professional with 30 years of leadership experience. After talking with my son about rationality, effective altruism, and AI risks, I decided to pursue a pivot to existential risk reduction work. The last time I had to apply for a job was in 1994. By the end of 2024, I had spent ~740 hours on courses, conferences, meetings with ~140 people, and 21 job applications. I hope that by sharing my experiences, you can gain practical insights, inspiration, and resources to navigate your career transition, especially for those who are later in their career and interested in making an impact in similar fields. I share my experience in 5 sections - sparks, take stock, start, do, meta-learnings, and next steps. [Note - as of 03/05/2025, I am still pursuing my career shift.] Sparks – 2022 During a Saturday bike ride, I admitted to my son, “No, I haven’t heard of effective altruism.” On another ride, I told him, “I'm glad you’re attending the EAGx Berkely conference." Some other time, I said, "Harry Potter and Methods of Rationality sounds interesting. I'll check it out." While playing table tennis, I asked, "What do you mean ChatGPT can't do math? No calculator? Next token prediction?" Around tax-filing time, I responded, "You really think retirement planning is out the window? That only 1 of 2 artificial intelligence futures occurs – humans flourish in a post-scarcity world or humans lose?" These conversations intrigued and concerned me. After many more conversations about rationality, EA, AI risks, and being ready for something new and more impactful, I decided to pivot my career to address my growing concerns about existential risk, particularly AI-related. I am very grateful for those conversations because without them, I am highly confident I would not have spent the last year+ doing that. Take Stock - 2023 I am very concerned about existential risk cause areas in ge
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Written anonymously because I work in a field where there is a currently low but non-negligible and possibly high future risk of negative consequences for criticizing Trump and Trumpism. This post is an attempt to cobble together some ideas about the current situation in the United States and its impact on EA. I invite discussion on this, not only from Americans, but also those with advocacy experience in countries that are not fully liberal democracies (especially those countries where state capacity is substantial and autocratic repression occurs).  I've deleted a lot of text from this post in various drafts because I find myself getting way too in the weeds discoursing on comparative authoritarian studies, disinformation and misinformation (this is a great intro, though already somewhat outdated), and the dangers of the GOP.[1] I will note that I worry there is still a tendency to view the administration as chaotic and clumsy but retaining some degree of good faith, which strikes me as quite naive.  For the sake of brevity and focus, I will take these two things to be true, and try to hypothesize what they mean for EA. I'm not going to pretend these are ironclad truths, but I'm fairly confident in them.[2]  1. Under Donald Trump, the Republican Party (GOP) is no longer substantially committed to democracy and the rule of law. 1. The GOP will almost certainly continue to engage in measures that test the limits of constitutional rule as long as Trump is alive, and likely after he dies. 2. The Democratic Party will remain constrained by institutional and coalition factors that prevent it from behaving like the GOP. That is, absent overwhelming electoral victories in 2024 and 2026 (and beyond), the Democrats' comparatively greater commitment to rule of law and democracy will prevent systematic purging of the GOP elites responsible for democratic backsliding; while we have not crossed the Rubicon yet, it will get much worse before things get better. 2. T