How Healthy are Milk Alternatives? Analysis and Scope for Improvement

An Agroscope study has analysed the nutritional quality of 66 milk alternatives from Swiss supermarkets. The researchers also considered how the nutritional profile of milk alternatives could be improved.

Milk alternatives have a lower environmental impact than animal-based products. This makes them an attractive product category in the shift towards a more sustainable food system.

Online market analysis of 66 products

Researchers at Agroscope conducted an extensive online market analysis of 66 milk alternatives in Switzerland to analyse their nutritional quality and composition, and to identify the potential to make them healthier. They collected the data from the online platforms of three Swiss supermarkets.

The Nutri-Score was calculated using the updated Rayner’s Score. The researchers additionally analysed the additives in the milk alternatives (number and type) and the proportion of processed and unprocessed ingredients.

Most milk alternatives have poor nutritional value

The majority of products had a Nutri-Score D (44%), which indicates a poor nutritional value (Figure 1). Milk alternatives with a Nutri-Score B mainly consisted of peas (100%), soya (80%), almonds (60%) and coconut (50%). In contrast, rice-based products (83%) and products made from mixed plant sources (70%) tended to have a lower nutritional profile (Nutri-Score D). Oat-based products had the lowest nutritional value, with a Nutri-Score E (12%). Notably, 21% of the 66 milk alternatives contained added sugar, especially soya and oat products.

Furthermore, a higher carbohydrate, sugar and calorie content was found to result in a poorer nutritional profile. In addition, products containing a higher percentage of processed ingredients, such as plant-based flour and powder, as well as a higher number of ingredients in general, tended to have a poorer nutritional profile. Products with a higher protein content, on the other hand, had a better nutritional profile.

Processed ingredients and additives

More than two thirds (67%) of milk alternatives contained unprocessed plant ingredients according to the list of ingredients. Products based on oats, soya, almonds, hazelnuts and potatoes had the lowest number of processed ingredients. Furthermore, 30% of all milk alternatives contained processed plant-based ingredients (flour, powder, paste, extracts, protein isolates), while 3% contained both processed and unprocessed plant ingredients. Milk alternatives based on coconut, cashew and peas were composed entirely of processed plant ingredients.

Among the 66 milk alternatives, 47% contained additives (acidity regulators, stabilisers, emulsifiers, thickeners), while 53% were additive-free. When the researchers looked at the use of additives according to plant source, they found that all milk alternatives made from potatoes, peas, cashews and coconut contained additives. Interestingly, no additives were found in milk alternatives from mixed plant sources.

Potential for higher nutritional quality and composition

Oat products in particular had the greatest potential to reduce the Rayner’s Score (−12 points), the calorie content (−36kcal/100ml) and the total sugar content (−8g/100ml).  Furthermore, soy-based products with added sugar had the greatest potential for sugar reduction, with a possible decrease of 4.9g per 100ml.

Opportunities to reduce the number of additives by up to three in milk alternatives made from oats, rice, soya, almonds and hazelnuts additionally came to light. Significant potential to reduce the amount of processed ingredients were also identified, especially for products from mixed plant sources (−17%) and those made from rice (−14%) and oats (−14%).