Dairy and Plant-Based Milks: Implications for Nutrition and Planetary Health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Dairy milk products are dominant in the market; however, plant-based milks are gaining prominence among USA consumers. Many questions remain about how plant-based milk products compare to dairy milk from a nutrition, public health, and planetary health perspective. Here, we compare the retail sales, nutrient profiles, and known health and environmental impacts of the production and consumption of dairy and plant-based milks and identify knowledge gaps for future studies. For our plant-based milk comparisons, we reviewed almond, soy, oat, coconut, rice, pea, cashew, and other plant-based milks as data were available.

RECENT FINDINGS

The retail unit price of plant-based milks was generally higher than that of cow's milk, making it less accessible to lower-income groups. Many plant-based milks are fortified to match the micronutrient profile of dairy milk more closely. Notable differences remained, especially in protein, zinc, and potassium, depending on the base ingredient and individual product. Some plant-based milks contain added sugar to improve flavor. Plant-based milks were generally associated with lower environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, water use) than cow's milk, with the notable exception of the higher water footprint of almond milk. This review of recent studies and consumer purchases confirmed that retail sales of plant-based milks are increasing and shifting among products. Further research is needed to better characterize the environmental impacts of newer plant-based milks, such as cashew, hemp, and pea milks; consumer attitudes and behavior towards plant-based milks; and the safety and potential health effects related to their long-term and more frequent consumption.

Balancing a sustained pursuit of nutrition, health, affordability and climate goals: exploring the case of Indonesia

BACKGROUND

To guide the transformation of food systems to provide for healthy and sustainable diets, countries need to assess their current diet and food supply in comparison to nutrition, health, affordability, and environmental goals.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare Indonesia's food utilization to diets optimized for nutritional value and cost and to diets that are increasingly plant-based in order to meet further health and environmental goals, including the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, to explore whether multiple goals could be achieved simultaneously.

METHODS

We compared 13 dietary scenarios (2 current, 7 optimized, 3 increasingly plant-based, 1 EAT-Lancet) for nutrient content, cost, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), and water footprints, using the FAO food balance sheet, Indonesia Household Income and Expenditure Survey household food expenditure, food composition, life cycle assessment, food losses, and trade data.

RESULTS

The diversity of modeled scenarios was higher than that of current consumption, reflecting nutritional deficiencies underlying Indonesia's burden of different forms of malnutrition. Nutrient intake targets were met best by nutrient- and cost-optimized diets, followed by the EAT-Lancet diet. Those diets also had high GHGe, although less than 40% of a scenario in which Indonesia would adopt a typical high-income country's diet. Only the low food chain diet had a GHGe below the 2050 target set by the EAT-Lancet commission. Its nutrient content was comparable to that of a no-dairy diet, slightly above those of fish-and-poultry and current diets, and somewhat below those of the EAT-Lancet diets. To meet nutrient needs, some animal-source foods had to be included. Costs of all except the optimized diets were above the current national average food expenditure. No scenario met all goals simultaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

Indonesia's consumption of rice and unhealthy foods should decrease; food production, trade, and processing should prioritize diversification, (bio)fortification, and limiting environmental impacts; and consumer and institutional demands for healthy, nutritious, and sustainable foods should be stimulated. More granular data and tools are required to develop and assess more detailed scenarios to achieve multiple goals simultaneously.