(Credit: Yulia Furman/Shutterstock)
COPENHAGEN, Denmark — Your morning oat milk latte might not be the health hero you think it is. Researchers from the University of Copenhagen say that plant-based drinks may be falling short in nutrition, challenging the widespread belief that these trendy alternatives are a healthier choice than traditional dairy.
The team examined 10 different plant-based beverages, comparing them side-by-side with cow’s milk, and uncovered some surprising findings. The key message? Not all milk is created equal.
“We definitely need to consume more plant-based foods. But if you’re looking for proper nutrition and believe that plant-based drinks can replace cow’s milk, you’d be mistaken,” says Professor Marianne Nissen Lund, the study’s lead author, in a university release.
The study published in the journal Food Research International explains that the problem lies in processing. Unlike cow’s milk, which comes nearly ready to drink straight from the cow, plant-based drinks undergo extensive transformation. To extend shelf life, manufacturers use Ultra High Temperature (UHT) treatment, a process that essentially “cooks” the beverage at extremely high temperatures.
This heat treatment triggers a chemical reaction called the Maillard reaction — the same process that gives browned foods like roasted almonds or seared steak their rich flavor. However, in plant-based drinks, this reaction comes with a nutritional cost.
The numbers tell a stark story. While cow’s milk contains 3.4 grams of protein per liter, eight out of 10 plant-based drinks analyzed contained just 0.4 to 1.1 grams. Even more concerning, the heat treatment further degrades the already limited protein content, reducing essential amino acids that are crucial for our health.
Moreover, seven out of 10 plant-based drinks contain more sugar than cow’s milk. The researchers even detected trace amounts of acrylamide, a compound typically found in fried foods that have been linked to potential health risks.
Before you swear off your favorite oat milk forever, the researchers offer balanced advice.
“If you eat healthy to begin with, you can definitely include plant-based drinks in your diet – just make sure that you’re getting your nutrients from other foods,” Professor Lund emphasizes.
Lund has her own recommendation. Opt for less processed foods and, when possible, make your own beverages. The study is essentially a wake-up call for both consumers and manufacturers to think more critically about food processing.
For the industry, it’s a challenge to develop more nutritionally sound plant-based alternatives. For consumers, it’s a reminder that “healthy” isn’t always as straightforward as it seems.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The study analyzed various plant-based milk alternatives (PBMAs) to evaluate concentrations of Maillard reaction products (MRPs) and amino acid cross-links. It specifically assessed how these compounds correlate with the chemical makeup of each PBMA. Researchers employed several advanced techniques including sample analysis of two types of UHT-treated cow’s milk and ten UHT-processed PBMAs.
Quantitative analyses included early-stage MRPs, intermediate MRPs, advanced glycation end products (AGEs), acrylamide, and amino acid cross-links using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC–MS) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). These methods provided detailed insights into the nutritional and chemical profiles of PBMAs, comparing them with cow’s milk.
Key Results
The study found significant variations in the nutritional content of different PBMAs, particularly in protein and carbohydrate levels. Soy-based drinks contained higher protein levels, while rice and oat drinks had higher carbohydrate content. Essential amino acid levels were lower in all PBMAs, impacting their nutritional quality. MRPs like furosine and AGEs varied across different PBMAs, suggesting different levels of heat processing.
The study also found specific α-dicarbonyl compounds to be more concentrated in PBMAs than in cow’s milk. These findings suggest that the type of plant base and the processing methods significantly influence the nutritional and chemical composition of milk alternatives.
Study Limitations
One limitation of the study is the focus on UHT-treated products, which may not represent all processing types used in PBMA production. Also, the study was limited to products available in the Scandinavian market, which might differ from those available in other regions. Furthermore, the nutritional analysis did not fully account for vitamin and mineral fortifications that are common in commercial PBMAs.
Discussion & Takeaways
The findings underscore the complex effects of processing on PBMA nutrition and safety. While PBMAs offer benefits like lower environmental impact and suitability for lactose-intolerant individuals, their nutritional profile, particularly in terms of protein and essential amino acids, generally falls short of cow’s milk. The formation of MRPs and amino acid cross-links during processing can further impact the healthfulness of PBMAs. Consumers should consider these factors when choosing milk alternatives, and manufacturers might need to refine processing techniques to minimize undesirable chemical changes while enhancing nutritional value.
Funding & Disclosures
The study received financial support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant no. NNF21OC0066330) to M.N. Lund, and from the “SOCIETÀ ITALIANA DI FARMACOLOGIA (SIF)” to Mariachiara Pucci. The authors declare no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have affected the work reported in this study.
