Got Milk? It Might Have Less Protein and Fat

The National Science Foundation (NSF) announced last month that it would start decommissioning 900 floating observatories off Washington State, Oregon, Alaska, North Carolina, and in an area between Iceland and Greenland called the Irminger Sea. After that announcement, there was strong political reaction against the move from both political parties. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) posted on X, “Fossil fuel is heating our oceans by the zettajoule, so Trump’s corrupt fossil fuel stooges want to turn off the monitors.” Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Or) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) led the effort to stop dismantling the program. The Senate voted unanimously to block the administration.

When NSF announced the reversal of its earlier plans, it said that it appreciated the concerns raised by stakeholders, and that it would stop the removals and implement the restoration of those that had already been decommissioned off the northwest U.S. coast.

The buoys are anchored to the seafloor and oceanographers can deploy sensors that move up and down the mooring lines. The observatories cost about $1.5 million each and they help scientists understand coastal environments and marine ecosystems. Researchers use the data to learn how greenhouse gases are absorbed in the ocean from the atmosphere and how ocean heating affects fisheries or coastal flooding. The data also help to study conditions like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which researchers say could collapse with major consequences for climate around the world.

When NSF announced the withdrawal of the monitors in May, which has now been reversed, a spokesperson told the Guardian that the organization was aligning with a “nimbler approach to prioritize support for evolving scientific priorities.” The PBS Newshour described this statement as incredibly hard to parse.

The recommendations were rooted in the concern that saturated fat and excess calories were fueling an epidemic of obesity and heart disease. However, recent research suggests that dairy fat’s correlation to heart health is more complex, and people could consider incorporating whole milk into their diets—provided they can find it in the future.

A new study from Cornell University says human-caused climate change is skimming the amount of fat and protein in milk and reducing the volume of milk a cow can produce. Lead author Ariel Ortiz-Bobea told H2O Radio, that heat-stressed cows pant more, eat less, and shift blood flow in ways that change how nutrients are used, so they synthesize less fat and protein.

His team analyzed data on the milk production of around 6.5 million cows from 2007 through 2016 and compared it with weather records with precision down to 2.5-mile grids across 43 states. They found that the amount of milk cows produced dropped sharply at a certain threshold of heat and humidity, but the negative effects on milk composition—its fat and protein—began much sooner and increased as temperatures rose.

That could spell trouble for dairy farmers in the U.S., most of whom are compensated based on the milk’s fat and protein content quantity (in kg) according to the Federal Milk Marketing Orders pricing structure, not the volume they deliver. Milk compensation is already low, so changes in its quantity and quality could lead to farm closures or more consolidation and also cause changes to land use in rural areas. 

What can be done? Ortiz-Bobea says the usual tools are cooling the animals with fans, misters, sprinklers, and shade. Producers can also adjust feed and rations and keep production in cooler regions. He adds that there’s little evidence cows can be bred to be more heat-resilient—even as they’ve become more productive through genetics.

For shoppers, the problem might show up first in products that depend on fat and protein, like cheese, butter, and yogurt, and eventually affect supply chains and prices as temperatures rise. 

The study was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Attorneys general from 17 states then filed a case challenging the order, and last December, they won when a federal judge ruled that Trump’s action was arbitrary and capricious. The administration appealed, but then earlier this month the Department of Justice requested the appeals court to dismiss the case, which it did last week.

Now, the administration’s attack on wind is coming through the Department of Defense, which since April, stopped reviewing more than 150 wind projects, citing national security. Typically, wind projects are considered for potential interference with flight paths and military radar. A group of energy organizations has sued to force the government to perform the reviews that had been delayed.

Renewable energy, particularly solar, is booming. The amount of clean power capacity including wind and solar that came online last year in the U.S. was the equivalent of the output of 25 Hoover Dams, according to a report from the Environmental Defense Fund. The report shows that a record of nearly 80 gigawatts of clean power will come online this year; however, wind projects may continue to face difficulties in 2026 despite there being a rebound in planned developments on land.

Last week, the largest wind farm in the country, the SunZia Wind Project in New Mexico, came online consisting of 916 turbines in three counties that will supply power to Arizona and California.