rice milk research paper

Plant-Based Milks: Rice

Rice milk is a plant-based, non-dairy beverage made primarily from milled rice and water. It is marketed as an allergy-friendly, easy-to-digest, vegan substitute for cow's milk (DREAM n.d.-a). Similar to other plant-based beverages, rice milk usually has an opaque white or beige color and creamy texture resembling that of cow's milk (Makinen et al. 2016). This publication describes how rice milk is made, its ingredients and nutrient profile, and potential health benefits and consumption risks.

How is rice milk made?

The industrial process of making rice milk involves several steps. First, the rice grains are milled, either fully or partially. "Fully milled" indicates that the husk, germ, and bran have been removed, and only white rice remains, whereas "partially milled" signifies that only the husk has been removed, and thus brown rice remains. The fully milled process may create the optimal texture, but it also results in losses of vitamins, minerals, and fiber (Muthayya et al. 2014). Next, the milled rice is ground, made into a slurry by combining it with water, and filtered to remove any particles that are too large or coarse (Makinen et al. 2016). The remaining slurry is treated with enzymes to partially break down the starch and facilitate a suspension mixture. When the desired viscosity (thickness) is reached, other ingredients are added, such as oil, salt, stabilizers, vitamins, minerals, flavors, and sweeteners. After adding oil, an emulsion is produced through homogenization, which creates the creaminess and stability of the rice milk (Makinen et al. 2016). Although commercially produced rice milk can typically be found at major grocery chains and health food stores, there are also many simple online recipes for making rice milk with basic ingredients in a home kitchen.

In most commercial brands of rice milk, the first four ingredients are water, milled rice, vegetable oil (canola, sunflower, or safflower), and salt (DREAM n.d.-d). In some rice milk varieties, there may be additional ingredients. These can include natural or artificial flavors, such as vanilla and chocolate; thickeners, such as xanthan gum, tapioca starch, or carrageenan; and vitamins and minerals for nutrient fortification, such as calcium phosphate and vitamins A, D, and B12 (DREAM n.d.-b).

How does the nutrient profile of rice milk compare to cow's milk?

Table 1 summarizes the nutrient profiles for a 1 cup (8 oz) serving of rice milk and whole and low-fat cow´s milk. This comparison assumes that the rice milk is unflavored but fortified with calcium and vitamins A, D, and B12.

Calories. A serving of cow's whole milk contains about 150 calories (USDA n.d.), whereas a serving of rice milk is about 120 calories (DREAM n.d.-c). However, fat-free and low-fat cow's milk contain fewer calories than rice milk (USDA n.d.).

Protein. A serving of cow's milk (either whole, skim, or low-fat) contains about 8 g of protein (USDA n.d.), whereas a serving of rice milk contains less than 1 g of protein (DREAM n.d.-c).

Fat. A serving of whole cow's milk contains about 8 g of fat, of which more than half is saturated fat (USDA n.d.). A serving of rice milk contains a similar amount of fat as low-fat milk but no saturated fat (DREAM n.d.-c).

Carbohydrates. An 8 oz serving of whole or low-fat cow's milk contains about 12 to 13 g of total carbohydrate, almost all of which is in the form of the naturally occurring milk sugar, lactose (Singhal, Baker, and Baker 2017). An 8 oz serving of rice milk contains about 23 g of total carbohydrates, of which about 10 g is added sugar (DREAM n.d.-c). The remaining 13 g of carbohydrate is starch. Most commercial rice milk contains no fiber.

Vitamins and Minerals. Commercially produced, fortified rice milk may contain similar levels of calcium, vitamins A, D, and B12 as cow's milk (USDA n.d.), because these nutrients have been added to the beverage during the production process. Unfortified rice milk (without any added vitamins and minerals), such as homemade rice milk, is not a source of these nutrients (DREAM n.d.-d).

What are the potential health benefits of rice milk?

Rice milk is safe for people who have allergies to cow's milk because it does not contain any milk protein. In the United States, foods that contain any of the eight major food allergens—or proteins derived from these foods—must include a disclosure on the label (FDA 2018). Dairy is the most common major food allergen. Allergies to soy and tree nuts, the base ingredients of other plant-based milks, are also common (FDA 2018). Although allergy to rice is possible, rice is not among the common allergens in the United States, making rice milk a safe choice for many people with allergies to dairy, soy, or nuts.

Because rice milk does not contain any lactose, it is suitable for adults with lactose intolerance. Lactose-free cow's milk is also suitable for individuals with lactose intolerance and is widely available in the United States.

Rice milk also contains no saturated fat or cholesterol (Singhal, Baker, and Baker 2017). The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting saturated fat intake to less than 10% of total calorie intake daily, so rice milk fits well within this guideline (USDA and USDHHS 2020). Note that low-fat and fat-free cow's milk also align with the DGA recommendation because these products are low in saturated fat.

What are the possible risks of rice milk?

Rice milk contains nearly twice as many grams of carbohydrates per serving as cow's milk, including about 10 g of sugars per serving. It is recommended in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to limit intake of sugar-containing beverages. In contrast, low-fat or skim cow's milk are free of added sugars and thus are healthful choices. The glycemic index of rice milk is also about twice that of cow's milk, meaning it leads to a higher increase in blood glucose after consumption (University of Sydney n.d.). Rice milk may not be the best choice for individuals with diabetes or at risk for diabetes, who are trying to limit intake of carbohydrates and manage their blood glucose.

A possible health risk of consuming rice milk is its potentially high levels of arsenic (Wilson 2015). Arsenic is a toxic metal that occurs naturally in the soil and water and can subsequently enter the food supply through plants. Rice tends to absorb higher amounts of arsenic than other grains and can sometimes reach dangerous levels if not monitored closely. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducts testing of foods to ensure limited consumer exposure to arsenic from rice and other foods (FDA 2019). For this reason, it is likely that commercially available rice milks available in the United States are not high in arsenic, but it may be prudent to consume rice and rice-containing products, including rice milk, in moderation.

Is rice milk an appropriate choice for children?

Rice milk has been suggested as a substitute for cow's milk for children with milk protein allergies (Tzifi, Grammeniatis, and Papadopoulous 2014). If a child is consuming a vegan diet, fortified rice milk does provide a source of some of the essential nutrients commonly found in dairy: calcium, vitamin A, vitamin D, and vitamin B12 (DREAM n.d.-c). However, rice milk provides very little protein—another much-needed nutrient for child growth. The addition of an appropriate protein powder, such as soy or pea, to rice milk may be needed to ensure adequate protein intake and proper growth and development (Baroni, Goggi, and Battino 2018). Additionally, it is important to note that caution should be taken regarding the amount of rice milk a child drinks due to the risk of arsenic toxicity, as discussed above (Carignan et al. 2016).

Rice milk should not be fed to infants. Infants should be fed human milk or, in the absence of human milk, an appropriate infant formula.

Rice milk is a plant-based, non-dairy beverage. Compared to cow's milk, rice milk is much lower in protein and higher in carbohydrate. If fortified, rice milk provides similar amounts of calcium and vitamins A, D, and B12 as cow's milk. The sugar and starch content of rice milk contributes to its high glycemic index. Because it provides little protein and is a potential source of arsenic, caution should be exercised when considering rice milk as a beverage for children.

Baroni, L., S. Goggi, and M. Battino. 2018. "Planning Well-Balanced Vegetarian Diets in Infants, Children, and Adolescents: The Vegplate Junior." Journal of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 119 (7): 1067–1073.

Carignan, C. C., T. Punshon, M. R. Karagas, and K. L. Cottingham. 2016. "Potential Exposure to Arsenic from Infant Rice Cereal." Annals of Global Health 82 (1): 221–224.

DREAM. n.d.-a. "Base Ingredient: Rice . " Accessed 2 April 2020. http://www.dreamplantbased.com/education

DREAM. n.d.-b. "Dream Products: Base Ingredient Rice." Accessed 20 April 2019. http://www.dreamplantbased.com/base/rice/

DREAM. n.d.-c. "Rice Dream: Enriched Original Rice Drink . " Accessed 2 April 2020. http://www.dreamplantbased.com/product/rice-dream-enriched-original-organic-rice-drink/

DREAM. n.d.-d. "Rice Dream: Original Rice Drink." Accessed 2 April 2020. http://www.dreamplantbased.com/product/rice-dream-classic-original-organic-rice-drink/

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. "Food Allergies: What You Need to Know . " Accessed 10 August 2022. https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/food-allergies-what-you-need-know

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2019. "Arsenic in Food and Dietary Supplements . " Accessed 2 April 2020. https://www.fda.gov/food/metals-and-your-food/arsenic-food-and-dietary-supplements

Makinen, O. E., V. Wanhalinna, E. Zannini, and E. K. Arendt. 2016. "Foods for Special Dietary Needs: Non-dairy Plant-Based Milk Substitutes and Fermented Dairy-Type Products." Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 56 (3): 339–349.

Muthayya, S., J. D. Sugimoto, S. Montgomery, and G. F. Maberly. 2014. "An Overview of Global Rice Production, Supply, Trade, and Consumption." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1324:7–14.

Singhal, S., R. D. Baker, and S. S. Baker. 2017. "A Comparison of the Nutritional Value of Cow's Milk and Nondairy Beverages." Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 64 (5): 799–805.

Tzifi, F., V. Grammeniatis, and M. Papadopoulos. 2014. "Soy- and Rice-Based Formula and Infant Allergic to Cow's Milk." Endocrine, Metabolic & Immune Disorders - Drug Targets 14 (1): 38–46.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available at DietaryGuidelines.gov.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). n.d. FoodData Central. Accessed 10 August 2022. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov

University of Sydney. n.d. GI Foods Advanced Search . Accessed 10 August 2022. Available from https://glycemicindex.com/gi-search/

Wilson, D. 2015. "Arsenic Consumption in the United States." The Journal of Environmental Health 78 (3): 8–14.

Nutrient profiles of fortified, unflavored rice milk compared to cow's milk.

Also Available in: Español

Publication # FSHN20-50

Release Date: August 1, 2024

Related Experts

Rivero mendoza, daniela.

University of Florida

Dahl, Wendy J.

Specialist/SSA/RSA

Related Units

Food Science and Human Nutrition

Related topics, plant-based milks.

• Critical Issue: Nutrition, Health and Food Safety

About this Publication

This document is FSHN20-50, one of a series of the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date October 2020. Revised May 2024. Visit the EDIS website at  https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu  for the currently supported version of this publication.

About the Authors

Meagan Lamothe, graduate student, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department; Daniela Rivero-Mendoza, Extension and research coordinator; and Wendy J. Dahl, associate professor, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department; UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611.

Find publications by topic area

Information.

• Accessibility

LAND GRANT MISSION

• UF/IFAS Locations
• UF/IFAS CALS

FOR AUTHORS

• Information for Authors
• EDIS Submissions
• ICS Editorial Services
• About EDIS Extension Publications

• Site Feedback |
• UF/IFAS Electronic Data Information System |
• University of Florida,   Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
• P.O. Box 110810 Gainesville, FL 32611 |
• (352) 392-1761 |
• Analytics ( Google Privacy Policy ) |
• Policies:  Disability Services | UF Privacy
• Last Modified: 8/19/2021

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A sustainable method: production of the fermented rice milk yogurt by using three efficient lactic acid bacteria.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. lab strains, 2.2. standard inoculum, 2.3. rice milk preparation, 2.4. fermented rice milk production, 2.5. lab cell viability, 2.6. lab cell kinetics, 2.7. chemical properties of fermented rice milk yoghurt, 2.7.1. ph and titratable acidity, 2.7.2. acidification kinetics, 2.7.3. nutritional facts of fermented rice milk yoghurt by lab strains, 2.8. shelf life time of fermented rice milk yogurt, 2.9. statistical analysis, 3.1. production of fermented rice milk yoghurt by lab, 3.1.1. lab cell viability, 3.1.2. lab growth kinetics, 3.2. chemical properties of rice milk yogurt fermented with lab, 3.2.1. determination of ph and ta, 3.2.2. acidification kinetics, 3.3. nutritional facts of fermented rice milk yoghurt by lab strains, 3.4. shelf life properties of rice milk yoghurt product, 4. discussion, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Tangyu, M.; Muller, J.; Bolten, C.J.; Wittmann, C. Fermentation of plant-based milk alternatives for improved flavour and nutritional value. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019 , 103 , 9263–9275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• FAO. Chemical, sensorial and rheological properties of a new organic rice bran beverage. Rice Sci. 2016 , 16 , 226–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao, M.; Lin, Y.; Chen, H. Improving nutritional quality of rice for human health. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2020 , 133 , 1397–1413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Padma, M.; Rao, P.J.; Edukondalu, L.; Aparna, K.; Babu, G.R. Development of probiotic rice milk and its storage studies. Pharma Innov. 2021 , 10 , 902–906. [ Google Scholar ]
• Craig, W.J.; Fresán, U. International analysis of the nutritional content and a review of health benefits of non-dairy plant-based beverages. Nutrients 2021 , 13 , 842. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Achi, O.K.; Asamudo, N.U. Cereal-based fermented foods of Africa as functional foods. In Bioactive Molecules in Food ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1527–1558. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anal, A.K. Quality ingredients and safety concerns for traditional fermented foods and beverages from Asia: A review. Fermentation 2019 , 5 , 8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ray, M.; Ghosh, K.; Singh, S.; Mondal, K.C. Folk to functional: An explorative overview of rice-based fermented foods and beverages in India. J. Ethn. Foods 2016 , 3 , 5–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Renschler, M.A.; Wyatt, A.; Anene, N.; Robinson-Hill, R.; Pickerill, E.S.; Fox, N.E.; McKillip, J.L. Using nitrous acid-modified de Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe medium to selectively isolate and culture lactic acid bacteria from dairy foods. J. Dairy Sci. 2020 , 103 , 1215–1222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abou-Dobara, M.I.; Ismail, M.M.; Refaat, N.M. Chemical composition, sensory evaluation and starter activity in cow, soy, peanut and rice milk. J. Nutr. Health Food Eng. 2016 , 5 , 00175. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Mesquita, A.R.C.; Costa, C.R.R.; Frutuoso, J.; Pinheiro, I.O.; Mota, A.; Franchitti, A.A.; Ximenes, E.A. Activity of metabolites produced by new strains of Lactobacillus in modified de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) medium against multidrug-resistant bacteria. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2017 , 11 , 345–355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Maier, R.M.; Pepper, I.L. Bacterial growth. In Environmental Microbiology ; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 37–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Banu, I.; Bumbac, G.; Bombos, D.; Velea, S.; Gălan, A.M.; Bozga, G. Glycerol acetylation with acetic acid over Purolite CT-275. Product yields and process kinetics. Renew. Energy 2020 , 148 , 548–557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Donkor, O.N.; Henriksson, A.; Vasiljevic, T.; Shah, N.P. Effect of acidification on the activity of probiotics in yoghurt during cold storage. Int. Dairy J. 2006 , 16 , 1181–1189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis , 17th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchholz, A.C.; Schoeller, D.A. Is a calorie a calorie? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004 , 79 , 899S–906S. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hammes, W.P. Fermentation of non-dairy foods. Food Biotechnol. 1991 , 5 , 293–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, D.J.; Oh, S.; Ku, K.H.; Mok, C.; Kim, S.H.; Imm, J.Y. Characteristics of yogurt-like products prepared from the combination of skim milk and soymilk containing saccharified-rice solution. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2005 , 56 , 23–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, S.; Tao, Y.; Li, D.; Wen, G.; Zhou, J.; Manickam, S.; Chai, W.S. Fermentation of blueberry juices using autochthonous lactic acid bacteria isolated from fruit environment: Fermentation characteristics and evolution of phenolic profiles. Chemosphere 2021 , 276 , 130090. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• El Tahir, L.H.M. Microbiological and Physiochemical Study on Bifidobacterium infantis 20088 Fermented Peanut Milk and Rice Milk and their Blends ; Sudan University of Science and Technology: Khartoum, Sudan, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishra, S.; Mishra, H.N. Effect of synbiotic interaction of fructooligosaccharide and probiotics on the acidification profile, textural and rheological characteristics of fermented soy milk. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2013 , 6 , 3166–3176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Astuti, M.; Meliala, A.; Dalais, F.S.; Wahlqvist, M.L. Tempe, a nutritious and healthy food from Indonesia. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000 , 9 , 322–325. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Obadina, A.; Akinola, O.; Shittu, T.; Bakare, H. Effect of natural fermentation on the chemical and nutritional composition of fermented soymilk nono. Niger. Food J. 2013 , 31 , 91–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ikujenlola, A.V.; Adurotoye, E.A.; Adeniran, H.A. Chemical and sensory properties of probioticated drinks from blends of African yam bean, soybean and coconut milk analogues. Acta Univ. Cibiniensis. Ser. E Food Technol. 2019 , 23 , 147–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumari, A.; Ranadheera, C.; Prasanna, P.; Senevirathne, N.; Vidanarachchi, J. Development of a rice incorporated synbiotic yogurt with low retrogradation properties. Int. Food Res. J. 2015 , 22 , 2032. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gamage, G.; Adikari, A.; Nayananjalie, W.; Prasanna, P.; Jayawardena, N.; Wathsala, R. Physicochemical, microbiological and sensory properties of probiotic drinking yogurt developed with goat milk. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2016 , 6 , 203–208. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Hozzein, W.N.; Hisham, S.M.; Alkhalifah, D.H.M. A Sustainable Method: Production of the Fermented Rice Milk Yogurt by Using Three Efficient Lactic Acid Bacteria. Appl. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13020907

Hozzein WN, Hisham SM, Alkhalifah DHM. A Sustainable Method: Production of the Fermented Rice Milk Yogurt by Using Three Efficient Lactic Acid Bacteria. Applied Sciences . 2023; 13(2):907. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13020907

Hozzein, Wael N., Sameh M. Hisham, and Dalal Hussien M. Alkhalifah. 2023. "A Sustainable Method: Production of the Fermented Rice Milk Yogurt by Using Three Efficient Lactic Acid Bacteria" Applied Sciences 13, no. 2: 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13020907

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Food Nutr Res

Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence

Tanja kongerslev thorning.

1 Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Tine Tholstrup

Sabita s. soedamah-muthu.

2 Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

3 Centre for Food, Nutrition and Health, University of Reading, Reading, UK

Arne Astrup

There is scepticism about health effects of dairy products in the public, which is reflected in an increasing intake of plant-based drinks, for example, from soy, rice, almond, or oat.

This review aimed to assess the scientific evidence mainly from meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised controlled trials, on dairy intake and risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cancer, and all-cause mortality.

The most recent evidence suggested that intake of milk and dairy products was associated with reduced risk of childhood obesity. In adults, intake of dairy products was shown to improve body composition and facilitate weight loss during energy restriction. In addition, intake of milk and dairy products was associated with a neutral or reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly stroke. Furthermore, the evidence suggested a beneficial effect of milk and dairy intake on bone mineral density but no association with risk of bone fracture. Among cancers, milk and dairy intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, and breast cancer, and not associated with risk of pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, or lung cancer, while the evidence for prostate cancer risk was inconsistent. Finally, consumption of milk and dairy products was not associated with all-cause mortality. Calcium-fortified plant-based drinks have been included as an alternative to dairy products in the nutrition recommendations in several countries. However, nutritionally, cow's milk and plant-based drinks are completely different foods, and an evidence-based conclusion on the health value of the plant-based drinks requires more studies in humans.

The totality of available scientific evidence supports that intake of milk and dairy products contribute to meet nutrient recommendations, and may protect against the most prevalent chronic diseases, whereas very few adverse effects have been reported.

Several media stories and organisations claim that dairy increases risk of chronic diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and cancer. Therefore, there is an increasing scepticism among the general consumers about the health consequences of eating dairy products. This is reflected in an increasing consumption of plant-based drinks, for example, based on soy, rice, almond, or oats. Dairy is an essential part of the food culture in the Nordic countries; thus, inclusion of milk and dairy products in the diet may be natural for many Nordic individuals. The major causes of loss of disease-free years in the Nordic countries today are type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancers. Moreover, the increasing prevalence of obesity greatly increases the risk of these chronic diseases. Given the increasing prevalence of these chronic diseases, it is critically important to understand the health effects of milk and dairy products in the diet. Accordingly, this narrative review presents the latest evidence from meta-analyses and systematic reviews of observational studies and randomised controlled trials on dairy intake (butter excluded) and risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and cancer as well as all-cause mortality.

We aim to answer the key questions: 1) For the general consumer, will a diet with milk and dairy products overall provide better or worse health, and increase or decrease risk of major diseases and all-cause mortality than a diet with no or low content of milk and dairy products? 2) Is it justified to recommend the general lactose-tolerant population to avoid consumption of milk and dairy products? 3) Is there scientific evidence to substantiate that replacing milk with plant-based drinks will improve health?

Obesity and type 2 diabetes

A large share of the on-going increase in prevalence of type 2 diabetes is driven by the obesity epidemic ( 1 , 2 ), and it is therefore relevant to assess the role of milk and dairy products for body weight control. Childhood overweight and obesity worldwide is a major contributor to the current obesity epidemic, and childhood obesity frequently tracks into adulthood ( 3 ). Therefore, early prevention of childhood obesity is important. A meta-analysis showed that among children in the pre-school and school age, there was no association between dairy intake and adiposity ( 4 ). However, there was a modestly protective effect in adolescence. A recent meta-analysis by Lu et al. ( 5 ) found that children in the highest dairy intake group were 38% less likely to be overweight or obese compared to those in the lowest dairy intake group. An increase in dairy intake of one serving per day was associated with a 0.65% lower body fat and a 13% lower risk of overweight or obesity.

Milk and dairy products are good sources of high-quality protein. Protein is important during weight loss and subsequent weight maintenance due to the high satiating effect which helps to prevent over-consumption of energy and thereby reduces body fat stores ( 6 , 7 ). Furthermore, dairy protein is a good source of essential amino acids for muscle protein synthesis and thus helps to maintain the metabolically active muscle mass during weight loss ( 8 ). Meta-analyses support that in adults, dairy products facilitate weight loss and improve body composition, that is, reduce body fat mass and preserve lean body mass during energy restriction and in short-term studies ( 9 – 11 ). The effect of an increased dairy consumption on body weight in long-term studies (>1 year) and in energy balance studies is less convincing ( 10 , 11 ). This is likely due to the opposing effects of dairy on body composition, that is, reduction of fat mass and preservation of lean body mass.

Meta-analyses assessing the role of intake of milk and dairy products on risk of type 2 diabetes have consistently found no or a slight beneficial effect of dairy intake on diabetes risk ( 12 – 15 ). This is consistent with a Mendelian randomisation study using genetic polymorphisms for the lactase gene, which showed that milk intake assessed by lactose tolerance was not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes or obesity ( 16 ). The most recent meta-analysis on dairy intake and diabetes incidence included 22 cohort studies with a total of 579,832 subjects and 43,118 type 2 diabetes cases ( 17 ). An inverse association between total dairy and yoghurt intake and risk of type 2 diabetes was reported although there was no association with milk intake. The benefits of fermented dairy products (cheese and yoghurt) in relation to type 2 diabetes may be due to their effect on the gut microbiota ( 18 , 19 ). Other studies have identified that whey protein (primarily in milk and yoghurt) can reduce postprandial plasma glucose concentration in type 2 diabetic subjects ( 20 ). This effect may be due to the branched chain amino acids in the whey protein fraction, particularly leucine which has been shown to induce a greater stimulation of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), but not glucagon like peptide 1 (GLP-1), compared to other amino acids ( 21 ). The GIP response is possibly a key factor in the higher insulin response and the subsequent lowering of blood glucose seen after whey ingestion, at least in healthy subjects. In addition to the insulinotropic effect of milk, a recent study has indicated that dairy may also improve insulin sensitivity ( 22 ).

Conclusion on obesity and type 2 diabetes

A diet high in milk and dairy products reduces the risk of childhood obesity and improves body composition in adults. This likely contributes to lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Additionally, dairy product consumption during energy restriction facilitates weight loss, whereas the effect of dairy intake during energy balance is less clear. Finally, there is increasing evidence suggesting that especially the fermented dairy products, cheese and yoghurt, are associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes.

Cardiovascular disease

Low-fat, calcium-rich dairy products are generally considered to lower blood pressure. This was supported by a meta-analysis of six observational studies, whereas no association was found with intake of high-fat dairy products ( 23 ). High-fat dairy products are known to increase high density lipoprotein (HDL)- and low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol concentrations. The latter normally predicts risk of cardiovascular disease ( 24 ), but this may depend on the size of the LDL-cholesterol particles. Small, dense LDL particles are more atherogenic than their larger counterparts ( 25 – 28 ) due to their lower affinity for the LDL-receptor and higher susceptibility to oxidation ( 29 ). In agreement, some of the fatty acids typically found in milk and dairy products have been associated with less small, dense LDL particles (4:0–10:0 and 14:0 in the diet, and 15:0 and 17:0 in serum phospholipids) ( 30 ). In addition, the minerals in milk and dairy products have been shown to attenuate the LDL-response to high-fat dairy intake ( 31 , 32 ).

Among high-fat dairy products, cheese in particular does not seem to increase LDL-cholesterol to the extent expected, based on the high content of saturated fat ( 33 ). When compared to habitual diet with a lower total and saturated fat content ( 33 ), or compared to diets with lower total fat content but higher content of high-GI carbohydrates ( 34 , 35 ), a high intake of cheese was found not to increase LDL-cholesterol. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials studying the effect of cheese consumption compared with other foods on blood lipids and lipoproteins showed that cheese caused lower total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations compared with butter ( 36 ). Compared with milk, however, there was no statistically significant difference in blood lipids ( 32 , 37 ). Several meta-analyses have been conducted on the relationship between intake of milk and dairy products and risk of developing cardiovascular disease. There was no consistent association between milk or dairy intake and cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease or stroke in a meta-analysis by Soedamah-Muthu et al. ( 38 ). In a recent update, including a higher number of prospective cohort studies, there was a significant inverse association between milk intake and stroke, with a 7% lower risk of stroke per 200 ml milk/day, but considerable heterogeneity. Further, stratification for Asian and Western countries showed a more marked reduction in risk in Asian than in Western countries. This is consistent with a previous meta-analysis by Hu et al. ( 39 ) showing a non-linear dose–response relationship between milk intake and risk of stroke, with the highest risk reduction of 7–8% with a milk intake of 200–300 ml/day. Also, the meta-analyses by Hu et al. ( 39 ) and de Goede et al. ( 40 ) both showed an inverse association between cheese intake and stroke, however only borderline significant in the latter. Accordingly, another meta-analysis on dairy and cardiovascular disease found that intake of cheese and milk as well as yoghurt was inversely associated with cardiovascular disease risk ( 41 ). A later meta-analysis by Qin et al. ( 42 ) found that dairy intake was associated with a 12% lower risk of cardiovascular disease, and 13% lower risk of stroke as compared to individuals with no or a low dairy consumption ( 42 ). Likewise, a recent and comprehensive meta-analysis, including 31 cohort studies, suggested that a high dairy intake was associated with a 9% lower risk of stroke, whereas no association was found with total cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease ( 43 ). Moreover, a high intake of cheese was associated with an 8% lower risk of coronary heart disease and a 13% lower risk of stroke. In addition, high plasma levels of the saturated fatty acid C 17:0, which primarily originates from dairy, were found to be associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease ( 44 ). Finally, a meta-analysis by O'Sullivan et al. ( 45 ) found no indication of total dairy intake or any specific dairy product being associated with an increased cardiovascular mortality. Studies are emerging showing that dairy products, particularly the low-fat types, cluster within a healthy dietary pattern ( 46 ), and therefore, the risk of residual confounding in the observational studies cannot be ruled out.

In accordance with the latest meta-analyses presented above, the latest Nordic Nutrition Recommendations have concluded that high consumption of low-fat milk products is associated with reduced risk of hypertension and stroke ( 47 ).

Conclusion on cardiovascular disease

The overall evidence indicates that a high intake of milk and dairy products, that is, 200–300 ml/day, does not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Specifically, there is an inverse association with risk of hypertension and stroke.

Bone health and osteoporosis

Milk and dairy products contain a number of nutrients that are required for building strong bones in childhood and for their maintenance during adulthood with the aim to reduce osteoporosis and bone fractures in older age ( 48 ). The European Commission has concluded that protein, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, manganese, zinc, vitamin D, and vitamin K are necessary for maintaining normal bones (European Commission regulation 2012). With the exception of vitamin D, these nutrients are all present in significant amounts in milk and dairy products.

Osteoporosis has been described as a ‘paediatric disease with geriatric consequences’ as low milk, and hence, low mineral intake during childhood and adolescence has been associated with significantly increased risk of osteoporotic fractures in middle and older age, particularly in women ( 49 , 50 ). A recent study indicated that in children and adolescents, except for those with very low calcium intakes, magnesium intake may be more important than calcium in relation to bone development ( 51 ). Calcium intake was found not to be significantly associated with total bone mineral content or density, whereas intake of magnesium and the amount absorbed were key predictors of bone mass. The extent to which these results can be extrapolated to the general population is uncertain, but milk and dairy products are important sources of magnesium and hence important supporters of bone growth during adolescence. In a meta-analysis by Huncharek et al. ( 52 ), dairy products, with or without vitamin D supplementation, increased total body and lumbar spine bone mineral content in children with low baseline dairy intake, whereas no effect was found for children with a high baseline dairy intake. Thus, there may be a threshold above which increasing intake of dairy products or dairy-calcium does not additionally benefit bone mineral content or density in children.

In adults, interactions between calcium, phosphorus, protein and vitamin D reduce bone resorption and increase bone formation, thereby attenuating age-related bone loss ( 53 ). Possibly due to the complex interaction between nutrients and the multifactorial nature of bone fractures, it has been difficult to establish whether or not a low intake of milk and dairy in adulthood increases the risk of osteoporosis and bone fractures. Hence, to date, meta-analyses have not supported a protective effect of milk and dairy intake in adulthood on risk of osteoporosis and bone fractures ( 54 , 55 ). Nevertheless a recent systematic review concluded that calcium and dairy are important contributors to bone health in adults ( 56 ).

In the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, it was stated that ‘Healthy eating patterns include fat-free and low-fat (1%) dairy, including milk, yoghurt, cheese, or fortified soy beverages (commonly known as “soymilk”). Those who are unable or choose not to consume dairy products should consume foods that provide the range of nutrients generally obtained from dairy, including protein, calcium, potassium, magnesium, vitamin D, and vitamin A (e.g. fortified soy beverages)’. Although the focus is on achieving the nutrient requirements by foods rather than supplements, plant-based beverages typically contain inorganic chemical forms of calcium, which may actually increase cardiovascular risk ( 56 , 57 ). As calcium in dairy is organic, milk and dairy products should still be considered the superior sources of calcium ( 58 ). Yet, future studies need to address whether or not vitamin D fortification of dairy products is crucial for these to have a positive effect on bone fracture risk.

Conclusion on bone health and osteoporosis

The present evidence suggests a positive effect of milk and dairy intake on bone health in childhood and adolescence, but with only limited evidence on bone health in adulthood and on the risk of bone fractures in older age.

In population studies, dairy has been associated positively and negatively with various cancers, but most have been based on limited evidence and very few findings remain robust. Dairy products contain a variety of bioactive compounds that could exert both positive and negative effects on carcinogenesis. The positive effects may be related to the content of calcium, lactoferrin, and fermentation products, whereas the negative effects could be linked to the content of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1) ( 59 ). The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) continuously and systematically reviews the evidence on diet and physical activity in relation to prevention of cancer, and specific areas are updated when new evidence has emerged.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of death among cancers in developed countries. Even though colorectal tumourigenesis is a complex process, epidemiological and experimental data indicate that milk and dairy products have a chemopreventive role in the pathogenesis. In the 2011 WCRF report on colorectal cancer, it was concluded that consumption of milk and calcium probably reduces the risk of this cancer ( 60 ). Likewise, in meta-analyses, dairy intake has consistently been associated with a decreased risk of colorectal cancer ( 61 , 62 ) and colon cancer ( 63 ). The most recent meta-analysis by Ralston et al. ( 64 ) reported 26% lower colon cancer risk in males consuming 525 g of milk per day, whereas no association was found in females.

The link between dairy intake and colorectal cancer is considered to be mainly due to the calcium derived from dairy, with a 24% risk reduction with a dairy-calcium intake of 900 mg/day ( 65 ). The proposed mechanisms behind this are calcium binding to secondary bile acids and ionised fatty acids, thereby reducing their proliferative effects in the colorectal epithelium ( 66 ). Also, calcium may influence multiple intracellular pathways leading to differentiation in normal cells and apoptosis in transformed cells ( 67 ). Accordingly, a number of studies have reported reduced cell proliferation in the colon and rectum with intake of calcium and dairy products ( 68 – 72 ).

In the 2010 WCRF report on breast cancer, it was concluded that the evidence for dairy intake and risk of breast cancer is non-conclusive ( 73 ). In accordance with a meta-analysis from 2011 on prospective cohort studies ( 74 ), a recent meta-analysis by Zang et al. ( 75 ), however, suggested that a high (>600 g/d) and modest (400–600 g/d) dairy intake was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer (10% and 6%, respectively) compared with a low dairy intake (<400 g/d). Within dairy subgroups, particularly yoghurt and low-fat dairy were found to be inversely associated with the risk of developing breast cancer. As calcium and vitamin D supplementation was previously shown to reduce risk of breast cancer in the Women's Health Initiative ( 76 ), these nutrients could be involved in the underlying mechanisms.

According to the 2014 WCRF report on prostate cancer, dairy may be associated with a limited-suggestive increased risk of prostate cancer, but the current evidence is limited ( 77 ). However, this conclusion was substantiated by the most recent meta-analysis by Aune et al. ( 78 ), which suggested that a high intake of dairy products, milk, low-fat milk, cheese, and calcium were associated with a 3–9% increased risk of prostate cancer. The mechanism behind this was suggested to be an increased circulating concentration of IGF-1, which has been previously shown to be associated with an increased prostate cancer risk ( 79 ).

The 2015 WCRF report on bladder cancer suggested that the evidence for milk and dairy on bladder cancer risk was inconsistent and inconclusive ( 80 ). Two meta-analyses on milk intake and bladder cancer risk have suggested a decreased risk of bladder cancer with a high intake of milk ( 61 , 81 ). Others have found no association between milk and dairy intake and risk of bladder cancer risk ( 82 ), but none have suggested an adverse effect.

Of the cancer types for which the associations with dairy intake were not presented in the WCRF reports, recent meta-analyses have suggested no association between dairy intake and risk of ovarian cancer ( 83 ), lung cancer ( 84 , 85 ), or pancreatic cancer ( 86 ) and an inverse association between dairy intake and risk of gastric cancer in Europe and the United States ( 87 ).

Studies in lactose-intolerant individuals

In a limited number of subjects, potential differences in cancer risk and mortality between lactose-tolerant and lactose-intolerant individuals (self-reported or assessed by polymorphisms for the lactase gene) have been reported under the assumption that lactose-intolerant individuals consume less milk. However, there may also be other differences between these two groups that need to be taken into consideration, for example, genetics, ethnicity, other dietary habits, smoking, physical activity, and socio-economic factors.

Bácsi et al. ( 88 ) examined the role of genetically determined differences in the ability to degrade lactose and showed that subjects with deficiencies in the genes coding for lactase (i.e. subjects not drinking milk due to intolerance) had an increased risk of colorectal cancer. This supports the ability of dairy products to reduce colorectal cancer risk and the causality of this relation. In the European EPIC study, the hypothesis that the genetically determined lactose tolerance was associated with elevated dairy product intake and increased prostate cancer risk was examined ( 89 ). The study included 630 men with prostate cancer and 873 matched control participants. Dairy product consumption was assessed by diet questionnaires, and intake of milk and total dairy products varied significantly by lactase genotype, with an almost twofold higher intake in lactose-tolerant compared to lactose-intolerant subjects. However, the lactase variant was not found to be significantly associated with prostate cancer risk. This indicates that residual confounding may have biased the associations observed between milk and dairy intake and prostate cancer risk in the observational studies included in a previous meta-analysis ( 78 ).

Ji et al. ( 90 ) investigated Swedish subjects with self-reported lactose intolerance and found a lower risk of lung, breast, and ovarian cancers compared to lactose-tolerant subjects. Unfortunately, no information about milk intake, or other genetic, ethnic, lifestyle (diet, smoking and physical activity), and behavioural characteristics were reported. Also, self-reported lactose intolerance may not be comparable to genetically determined lactose intolerance. Due to potential bias in the design and the lack of control for known confounders, it is impossible to conclude about the relationship with dairy intake. Also, these findings are in contrast with the additional literature suggesting no or an inverse association between dairy intake and risk of breast cancer ( 74 , 75 ), ovarian cancer ( 83 , 91 ), and lung cancer ( 84 , 85 ).

Conclusion on cancer

According to WCRF reports and the latest meta-analyses, consumption of milk and dairy products probably protects against colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, and breast cancer. Dairy intake does not seem to be associated with risk of pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, or lung cancer, whereas the evidence for prostate cancer risk is inconsistent. In women, dairy offers significant and robust health benefits in reducing the risk of the common and serious colorectal cancer and, possibly, also the risk of breast cancer. In men, the benefit of the protective effect of milk and dairy on the common and serious colorectal cancer is judged to outweigh a potentially increased risk of prostate cancer.

All-cause mortality

In medical research, the term ‘all-cause mortality’ implies all causes of death. There are many individual studies reporting that a high consumption of milk and dairy products is associated with decreased mortality ( 92 ), unchanged mortality ( 93 ), or even increased mortality ( 94 ). However, based on meta-analyses of observational cohort studies, there is no evidence to support the view that milk and dairy product intake is associated with all-cause mortality ( 45 , 95 ). In a meta-analysis, O'Sullivan et al. ( 45 ) studied whether intake of milk and dairy products as food sources of saturated fat was related to all-cause mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Neither total dairy intake nor intake of any specific dairy products was found to be associated with all-cause mortality. In the most recent meta-analysis including 12 observational studies of milk intake and mortality, there were no consistent associations between milk intake and all-cause or cause-specific mortality ( 95 ).

Conclusion on all-cause mortality

The evidence from observational studies confirms that there is no association between consumption of milk and dairy products and all-cause mortality.

Comparison of nutrient content and health aspects of milk and plant-based drinks

In recent decades, the market for milk and dairy substitute drinks based on, for example, soy, rice, oats, or almonds has expanded, and calcium-fortified plant-based drinks have become part of the nutrition recommendations as alternatives to milk in several countries, such as the United States, Sweden, Australia, and Brazil. Among the plant-based milk substitutes, soy drink dominates the market in the Western world, but the emerging of other plant-based drinks has influenced the market for soy drink ( 96 ).

The nutrient density of plant-based milk substitutes varies considerably between and within types, and their nutritional properties depend on the raw material used, the processing, the fortification with vitamins and minerals, and the addition of other ingredients such as sugar and oil. Soy drink is the only plant-based milk substitute that approximates the protein content of cow's milk, whereas the protein contents of the drinks based on oat, rice, and almonds are extremely low, and the recent review of Mäkinen et al. ( 96 ) emphasises the importance of consumer awareness of such low-protein contents. Moreover, there are now cases of severe nutritional deficiencies in children being reported as a result of inappropriate consumption of plant-based drinks ( 97 , 98 ).

Despite the fact that most of the plant-based drinks are low in saturated fat and cholesterol, some of these products have higher energy contents than whole milk due to a high content of oil and added sugar. Some plant-based drinks have a sugar content equal to that of sugar-sweetened beverages, which have been linked to obesity, reduced insulin sensitivity ( 99 ), increased liver, muscle, and visceral fat content as well as increased blood pressure, and increased concentrations of triglyceride and cholesterol in the blood ( 100 , 101 ). Analyses of several commercially available plant-based drinks carried out at the Technical University of Denmark showed a generally higher energy content and lower contents of iodine, potassium, phosphorus, and selenium in the plant-based drinks compared to semi-skimmed milk ( 102 ). Also, rice drinks are known to have a high content of inorganic arsenic, and soy drinks are known to contain isoflavones with oestrogen-like effects. Consequently, The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration concluded that the plant-based drinks cannot be recommended as full worthy alternatives to cow's milk ( 102 ), which is consistent with the conclusions drawn by the Swedish National Food Agency ( 103 ).

The importance of studying whole foods instead of single nutrients is becoming clear as potential nutrient–nutrient interactions may affect the metabolic response to the whole food compared to its isolated nutrients. As the plant-based drinks have undergone processing and fortification, any health effects of natural soy, rice, oats, and almonds cannot be directly transferred to the drinks, but need to be studied directly. Only a few studies have compared the effects of cow's milk with plant-based drinks as whole foods on disease risk markers ( 104 – 108 ). However, none of these have included commercially available drinks or disease endpoints. Therefore, the evidence is currently insufficient to conclude that plant-based drinks possess health benefits above those of milk and dairy products. Until more research has been conducted and a scientifically sound conclusion can be drawn, health authorities should be cautious about recommending plant-based drinks as acceptable substitutes to cow's milk for the general population.

Conclusion on nutrient content and health aspects of milk and plant-based drinks

Cow's milk and plant-based drinks are completely different products, both regarding nutrient content and presumably also health effects. Although there are concerns about children consuming the low-protein drinks, further evidence-based assessment of the nutritional and health value of the plant-based drinks must await more studies in humans.

Answers to the key questions

Key question 1: For the general consumer, will a diet with milk and dairy products overall provide better or worse health, and increase or decrease risk of major diseases and all-cause mortality than a diet with no or low content of milk and dairy products?

Consumption of dairy products is associated with an overall reduced risk of cardiometabolic diseases and some cancers, whereas only very few adverse effects have been reported ( Fig. 1 ). Dairy products may therefore have the potential to reduce the burden of the most prevalent chronic diseases in the population and to substantially reduce the health care costs for society ( 109 ). Consumption of dairy products is part of the dietary recommendations in several nations, for example, Sweden, Denmark, and United States. A general recommendation to reduce the intake of dairy products in individuals who actually tolerate them may be counterproductive for health and could therefore increase health care expenses. However, more emphasis should be on the foods which dairy replaces in the diet. In addition, as most of the conducted meta-analyses are on observational data, residual confounding cannot be ruled out, and it is also possible that milk and dairy intake in these studies could be just a marker of diets of higher nutritional quality.

Overall effect/association between dairy product intake and health outcomes. ↓ favourable effect/association; ↑adverse effect/association; → no effect/association.

Key question 2: Is it justified to recommend the general lactose-tolerant population to avoid the consumption of milk and dairy products?

In the Nordic countries, as few as 2% of the population has primary lactase deficiency and can be classified as lactose-intolerant individuals ( 110 ). Yet, most lactose-intolerant adults can tolerate one glass of milk or a scoop of ice cream. Cheeses have negligible lactose contents, and the lactose in yoghurt is digested more efficiently than other dairy sources due to the bacterial lactase present in yoghurt which facilitates lactose digestion ( 111 ). Therefore, fermented dairy products, that is, yoghurt and most cheeses (cottage cheese, as well as soft and hard cheeses), can be tolerated by lactose-intolerant individuals without symptoms ( 111 , 112 ).

The same applies to cow's milk protein allergy that typically occurs in 0.1–2.0% of children in the Nordic countries and Europe ( 113 ). Among children with verified cow's milk-specific IgE who were re-evaluated 1 year after diagnosis, 69% tolerated cow's milk at re-evaluation ( 114 ). Thus, the condition is generally seen to resolve in children. To warn the general population against dairy consumption based on rare milk allergies would be equivalent to warn against foods, such as peanuts or seafood due to the fact that a small subset of the population is allergic to these foods.

Key question 3: Is there scientific evidence to substantiate that replacing milk and dairy products with plant-based drinks will improve health?

Cow's milk and plant-based drinks are not nutritionally comparable foods. As only a few studies have investigated the health effects of replacing cow's milk with plant-based drinks and none have focused on commercially available drinks or on disease endpoints, the effect of this replacement can only be speculated on. There have, however, been individual cases reporting illness in children consuming low-protein plant-based drinks, but an evidence-based final assessment of the health value of plant-based drinks compared to cow's milk must await more studies in humans.

Overall conclusions regarding intake of milk and dairy products and health

Our review of the totality of available scientific evidence supports that intake of milk and dairy products contributes to meeting nutrient recommendations and may protect against the most prevalent, chronic non-communicable diseases, whereas very few adverse effects have been reported.

Conflicts of interest and funding

Tanja Kongerslev Thorning has no conflicts of interest to declare. Anne Raben is recipient of research funding from the Dairy Research Institute, Rosemont, IL, USA and the Danish Agriculture & Food Council.Tine Tholstrup is recipient of research grants from the Danish Dairy Research Foundation and the Dairy Research Institute, Rosemont, IL. The sponsors had no role in design and conduct of the studies, data collection and analysis, interpretation of the data, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscripts. Sabita S. Soedamah-Muthu received funding from the Global Dairy Platform, Dairy Research Institute and Dairy Australia for meta-analyses on cheese and blood lipids and on dairy and mortality. The sponsors had no role in design and conduct of the meta-analyses, data collection and analysis, interpretation of the data, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscripts. Ian Givens is recipient of research grants from UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), UK Medical Research Council (MRC), Arla Foods UK, AAK-UK (both in kind), The Barham Benevolent Foundation, Volac UK, DSM Switzerland and Global Dairy Platform. He is a consultant for The Bio-competence Centre of Healthy Dairy Products, Tartu, Estonia, and in the recent past for The Dairy Council (London). Arne Astrup is recipient of research grants from Arla Foods, DK; Danish Dairy Research Foundation; Global Dairy Platform; Danish Agriculture & Food Council; GEIE European Milk Forum, France. He is member of advisory boards for Dutch Beer Knowledge Institute, NL; IKEA, SV; Lucozade Ribena Suntory Ltd, UK; McCain Foods Limited, USA; McDonald's, USA; Weight Watchers, USA. He is a consultant for Nestlé Research Center, Switzerland; Nongfu Spring Water, China. Astrup receives honoraria as Associate Editor of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , and for membership of the Editorial Boards of Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism and Annual Review of Nutrition . He is recipient of travel expenses and/or modest honoraria (<$2,000) for lectures given at meetings supported by corporate sponsors. He received financial support from dairy organisations for attendance at the Eurofed Lipids Congress (2014) in France and the meeting of The Federation of European Nutrition Societies (2015) in Germany.

We apologize for the inconvenience...

To ensure we keep this website safe, please can you confirm you are a human by ticking the box below.

If you are unable to complete the above request please contact us using the below link, providing a screenshot of your experience.

https://ioppublishing.org/contacts/

• Share full article

100 Easy Dinners for Right Now

Meal planning can be a slog. Let us help.

Supported by

By Emily Weinstein

• Published Sept. 3, 2024 Updated Sept. 5, 2024

Summer is hot dogs and ice pops, shaggy dinners at dusk, the melting mixture of energy and malaise that gives the season its shape. But that’s not fall. Fall is crisp. Fall is orderly. There’s no malaise and no melt. Those anything-goes August dinners give way to meal plans sketched out on Sunday and empty lunchboxes waiting to be filled.

I’m guessing the last thing you want to do is figure out those meal plans (and don’t even get me started on those lunchboxes ). Maybe you even want to reboot your cooking altogether? Let me help you.

I write a newsletter for New York Times Cooking called Five Weeknight Dishes , and last September, I created a list of 100 dinner recipes for you to try. Now I’m back with a whole new list for you to make in the months ahead, in honor of the back-to-school energy that rolls off Labor Day weekend and propels you through the months ahead. (And, to keep that momentum going, and to answer the eternal question of “what should I make for dinner?,” we’re also starting a new newsletter, Dinner Tonight. Starting Sept. 16, it’ll send a fast, easy recipe to your inbox every Monday through Thursday around 4:30 p.m. Eastern. Sign up here .)

The list below is brimming with jammy eggs, chile crisp, citrus and feta. There are smooth sauces, crisp edges and caramelized crusts. There are many, many ways to chicken. But the thing all of these recipes have in common — aside from their fast cook times and streamlined approaches to ingredients — is that they are all delicious.

CHICKEN | PASTA, NOODLES & RICE FISH | BEEF | VEGGIES

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement