The Nordic food debate is often framed as a binary choice: animal-based foods for nutrition versus plant-based alternatives for sustainability. A Danish-led research initiative brings needed nuance to this discussion, concluding that cow’s milk remains nutritionally superior to most plant-based drinks—particularly oat beverages—while plant drinks retain a clear advantage on climate impact. The implication for consumers, policymakers, and food businesses is straightforward but uncomfortable: there is no single “better” choice, only better-informed ones.
What the Danish Research Really Tells Us
Researchers from the University of Copenhagen compared ultra-high-temperature (UHT) treated cow’s milk with a range of plant-based drinks commonly sold in Denmark, including oat, soy, almond and blended products. Their focus went beyond headline protein numbers to examine protein quality, essential amino acid composition, sugar content and the biochemical effects of heat processing.
The findings challenge the widespread perception that plant-based drinks are nutritionally equivalent to milk:
- Protein quantity and quality in plant drinks were consistently lower than in cow’s milk.
- Essential amino acids, particularly lysine, were reduced both by raw material choice and by industrial heat processing.
- Processing effects, including Maillard reactions, further diminished nutritional value and in some cases led to the formation of acrylamide, a substance classified as potentially carcinogenic.
The conclusion was clear: from a nutritional standpoint, most plant-based drinks currently on the market are inferior to cow’s milk unless carefully fortified and deliberately selected.
Nutrition: Why Milk Still Matters
Cow’s milk remains one of the most nutrient-dense everyday foods in Nordic diets. It naturally delivers:
- High-quality complete protein (around 3.4 g per 100 ml)
- Calcium with high bioavailability
- Vitamins B2 and B12
- Iodine, a micronutrient of particular concern in Nordic populations
In contrast, most oat drinks contain only 0.4–1.1 g of protein per 100 ml, with lower biological value due to incomplete amino acid profiles. Broader European dietary modelling shows that replacing milk with non-fortified plant drinks can reduce intakes of calcium, vitamin B2, B12 and iodine to roughly half of recommended levels, particularly in children, adolescents and pregnant women.
While fortification can offset some of these losses, iodine remains inconsistently added and poorly regulated across plant-based categories.
Climate and Sustainability: Where Plant Drinks Win
Where plant-based drinks clearly outperform milk is environmental impact. Life-cycle assessments consistently show that oat, soy and almond drinks generate:
- Substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions
- Lower land use
- Reduced water consumption
From a Nordic climate policy perspective, this matters. However, Danish consumption data reveal an important reality check: despite rapid growth, plant drinks still replace only a small fraction of total milk consumption. As a result, the system-wide climate benefit remains modest so far.
This raises a strategic question for policymakers and industry leaders: should the focus be on substitution alone, or on improving the nutritional performance of low-impact foods?
Processing, Innovation and the Business Opportunity
One of the most overlooked insights from the Danish study concerns processing. All plant drinks analysed were UHT treated, while Danish retail milk is typically only low-pasteurised. The higher heat load in plant drinks accelerates amino acid degradation and sugar-protein reactions, directly undermining nutritional quality.
For Nordic food companies, this represents both a challenge and an opportunity:
- Can lower-impact processing technologies preserve protein quality?
- Can fermentation, blending or crop innovation improve amino acid profiles?
- Can fortification strategies be standardised and regulated to ensure public health outcomes?
As plant-based consumption grows, nutritional adequacy will increasingly become a regulatory and reputational issue, not just a consumer preference.
So, Which Is “Better”?
The answer depends on priorities:
- From a nutrition and public health perspective, cow’s milk remains the most reliable option—especially for vulnerable groups—unless plant drinks are carefully fortified and consumed as part of a well-planned diet.
- From a climate and animal welfare perspective, plant-based drinks have a clear advantage, provided nutrient gaps are actively managed elsewhere in the diet.
Practical Takeaways for Nordic Consumers and Decision-Makers
- If health and nutrition are the primary goals: choose cow’s milk or a fortified plant drink (preferably soy or oat) with added calcium, vitamin B2, B12 and iodine, and comparable protein levels.
- If climate impact is the priority: a fortified oat or other plant drink can be a viable compromise, but only within a diet that supplies missing nutrients via fish, eggs, fortified foods or supplements.
A Debate That Has Moved On
Since the publication of the Danish findings, the conversation has evolved. Nutrition authorities across Europe increasingly stress that plant-based does not automatically mean healthy, and that sustainability targets must be aligned with nutritional resilience. The future debate is less about milk versus plants—and more about how food systems can deliver both low emissions and high nutritional value.
Nordic Business Journal – Editorial Follow-Up
Next article direction:
How can Nordic food innovation bridge the gap between sustainability and nutritional adequacy? We will explore emerging processing technologies, regulatory trends in fortification, and the next generation of hybrid and fermented beverages.
Connect with us:
We invite readers, industry leaders and policymakers to share insights, data and perspectives. Reach out to Nordic Business Journal to continue shaping the evidence-based conversation on the future of food in the Nordics.