Consumer Preference for “Imitation” Milk Beverages

Abstract

TMITATION milk is not new. Production records of 1916 show 6,400 metric tons of milk processed in that year alone [13, p. 38]. However, during the past few years sales of non-dairy and partially non-dairy products have increased rapidly. There are two broad categories of imitation milk: (1) a beverage containing non-fat milk solids with the milk fat replaced by vegetable fat (henceforth referred to as filled milk); and (2) a beverage containing no milk products (henceforth referred to as synthetic milk) [9, p. 17]. Either of the above types of milk would have adverse effects on the dairy industry should it capture a substantial part of the fluid milk market. Available data indicates that filled milk products enjoy a constant and rapid increase in sales. In the federal market order areas of the United States, filled milk sales increased from 2.4 million pounds in November of 1967 [16, p. 23] to 4.9 million pounds in April of 1969 [17, p. 24]. No comparable data is available for synthetic milk.1 The major problem faced by the dairy industry is the price advantage enjoyed by the products. A recent USDA publication compared the price per one-half gallon for raw materials used in whole milk, filled milk, and synthetic milk. As shown in Table 1, the cost difference per one-half gallon between whole milk and filled milk (using Class I fluid skim milk base), was 6.5 cents per one-half gallon. The difference in cost between whole milk and synthetic was 14.2 cents, while the difference between filled milk and synthetic milk was 7.7 cents. The best case history of filled milk sales is found in the Central Arizona marketing area. Go, marketed by Sarival Guernsey Farms [14, p. 36], has grown from 1.3 percent of regulated pool plant (Class I) sales in October, 1966, to 11.5 percent of sales as of August, 1968 [9, p. 21].