Abstract
Background: Plant-based milk alternatives (PBMA) are increasingly popular, driven by medical, environmental or moralistic reasons or perceived health benefit.
Objective: This study aimed to compare the nutritional profile, cost and environmental impact of all PBMA and dairy milk (DM) in the UK.
Methods: Nutritional information, ingredients, and cost of PBMA (n=191) and DM (n=195) were systematically collected from the top ten supermarkets. Published data on the environmental impact of foods was assessed. Milk was classified per 100ml by energy (kcal), macronutrients (g) and micronutrients (mg, ug) and average values were compared between PBMA and DM. Further analysis stratified milks by DM fat profile. PBMA were categorised according to NOVA criteria. Cost per 1L and environmental impact were compared for PBMA and DM.
Results: PBMA with a similar fat profile to ‘semi-skimmed’ milk had a significantly lower energy content (p<0.001) and most (except coconut) had a significantly lower saturated fat content than DM. DM provided more protein, carbohydrate, total sugar and salt and PBMA provided more fibre and total vitamin D. In total, 92% of non-organic PBMA were fortified with at least one micronutrient; 87% with calcium, 34% iodine, 79% vitamin B12 and 56% vitamin B2. PBMA contained between 2-16.5% of the ‘main ingredient’, e.g. ‘oats’. Of non-organic PBMA, 97% were classified as ‘ultra-processed’. On average, PBMA (£1.95/L) cost 64% more than DM (£1.19/L). Environmental analysis was conducted but not considered sufficiently robust to draw meaningful results (Appendix A).
Conclusions: PBMA cannot be recommended as a nutritional replacement for DM, due to varying nutritional profiles. However, some PBMA will be more beneficial than others depending on an individual's health needs. Cow’s milk is cheaper than PBMA. Further understanding of the potential health impacts of consuming PBMA is warranted. There is a need for robust, primary research on environmental impacts of foods.
Objective: This study aimed to compare the nutritional profile, cost and environmental impact of all PBMA and dairy milk (DM) in the UK.
Methods: Nutritional information, ingredients, and cost of PBMA (n=191) and DM (n=195) were systematically collected from the top ten supermarkets. Published data on the environmental impact of foods was assessed. Milk was classified per 100ml by energy (kcal), macronutrients (g) and micronutrients (mg, ug) and average values were compared between PBMA and DM. Further analysis stratified milks by DM fat profile. PBMA were categorised according to NOVA criteria. Cost per 1L and environmental impact were compared for PBMA and DM.
Results: PBMA with a similar fat profile to ‘semi-skimmed’ milk had a significantly lower energy content (p<0.001) and most (except coconut) had a significantly lower saturated fat content than DM. DM provided more protein, carbohydrate, total sugar and salt and PBMA provided more fibre and total vitamin D. In total, 92% of non-organic PBMA were fortified with at least one micronutrient; 87% with calcium, 34% iodine, 79% vitamin B12 and 56% vitamin B2. PBMA contained between 2-16.5% of the ‘main ingredient’, e.g. ‘oats’. Of non-organic PBMA, 97% were classified as ‘ultra-processed’. On average, PBMA (£1.95/L) cost 64% more than DM (£1.19/L). Environmental analysis was conducted but not considered sufficiently robust to draw meaningful results (Appendix A).
Conclusions: PBMA cannot be recommended as a nutritional replacement for DM, due to varying nutritional profiles. However, some PBMA will be more beneficial than others depending on an individual's health needs. Cow’s milk is cheaper than PBMA. Further understanding of the potential health impacts of consuming PBMA is warranted. There is a need for robust, primary research on environmental impacts of foods.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 107436 |
| Journal | Current Developments in Nutrition |
| Early online date | 9 Apr 2025 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 9 Apr 2025 |