This is the takeaway from a new study conducted by University of Melbourne researchers, who modeled the health impact of consuming plant-based milk alternatives instead of dairy milk.
In Australia, milk alternatives need to only contain 100mg of calcium per 100ml to be deemed suitable alternatives to dairy milk. But as dairy milk is a source of 13 essential nutrients, researchers have questioned if calcium fortification alone is enough to keep consumers healthy.
Meanwhile, plant-based milk is consumed by around a quarter of adults, and almost 4 in 10 households purchase both dairy and plant-based alternatives.
In Australia, dairy milk consumption has declined, falling 8% in the five years to 2022/23.
But most plant-based milk products sold in Australia are not fortified with nutrients such as vitamin B2 (also known as riboflavin), vitamin B12 and iodine, suggesting there could be nutritional gaps in these consumers’ diets.
Existing research on the topic has been lacking or inconclusive, however. This has lead researchers from University of Melbourne to closely examine how plant-based milk alternatives sold in major supermarkets compared nutritionally with regular-fat cow’s milk, the most popular variety of dairy milk consumed in Australia.
The idea was to estimate the health impacts of swapping traditional dairy with plant-based milk, zeroing in on the intake of protein, vitamin B2 (also known as riboflavin), vitamin B12 and iodine, in addition to calcium.
The findings revealed that replacing cow’s milk with non-riboflavin-fortified, non-vitamin B12-fortified and non-iodine-fortified plant-based milk alternatives would likely lead to inadequate intake of these nutrients among key consumer groups.
Specifically:
- 31% of older women would be riboflavin-deficient (compared to 20% of those who consume dairy milk instead);
- 9% of men and 11-17% of women aged 14+ would lack vitamin B12 (versus < 1% of men and 6-8% of women consuming dairy milk); and
- 5% of males and 16% of females would have inadequate dietary iodine intake (versus 2% of men and 8% of women).
While most of the milk alternatives also lacked protein – save for soy, plant-based drinks tended to be lower in protein content than cow’s milk – the impact of lower protein levels was ‘more minor’ for most of the population, and protein adequacy [was] less likely to be compromised other than for older adults, the study concluded.
“The results of this dietary modelling indicate that, within the Australian diet, replacement of cows’ milk with [milk alternatives] unfortified with riboflavin, vitamin B12 or iodine (most types of plant-based milk-like drinks) would likely lead to meaningful decreases in the usual dietary intakes of these nutrients for some or all population groups,” the authors stated.
“The results of the present study also highlight the need for greater consideration of vitamin B12 intakes when PBML drink that is not fortified with vitamin B12 replaces cows’ milk, for the population as a whole, and particularly for females of childbearing age and older people.
“The present results, predicting that 11–17% of females of childbearing age (compared with 6–8%) would likely have an inadequate dietary vitamin B12 intake if cows’ milk is replaced by non-B12 fortified [plant-based milk] drinks, is a particular concern.
“During pregnancy, adequate vitamin B12 status is important for foetal neural myelination, brain and cognitive development and a low vitamin B12 status has been associated with developmental anomalies and low birth weight.
“Overall, the results of the present study suggest that there is a need for renewed consideration of population riboflavin, vitamin B12 and iodine intakes when providing advice about the types of [plant-based milk] drinks suitable to replace cows’ milk,” the authors concluded.
Source:
Time to consider more than just calcium? The impact on protein, riboflavin, vitamin B12 and iodine intake of replacing cows’ milk with plant‑based milk‑like drinks—an Australian usual intake dietary modelling study
Authors: Anita S. Lawrence, Daniel Russo‑Batterham, Kim Doyle, Edoardo Tescari
Published: European Journal of Nutrition (2025) 64:182