Plant-based milk import has been increasing in the Fijis supermarkets. While this milk may cater for vegans(1) and people with allergies from dairy milk, the question always remains that if the plant-based milk are equally nutritious and available at reasonable price in comparison to the dairy milk. Dairy milk is commonly consumed by the Fijian population while the plant-based milk is positioning itself into the market as alternatives. Therefore, this paper is aimed at comparing the nutrient content and price of milk from dairy cows and plant milk sources available in the supermarkets in Fiji. This study examines different brands of dairy and plant-based milk in 6 major supermarket chains in the central part of Fiji. There was 22 dairy milk, 6 soya milk, 5 almond milk and 4 oat milk sampled from these supermarkets. The median value of milk nutrient composition and price for dairy milks and different plant-based milks were calculated as the data was not normally distributed. The Kruskal- Wallis test was conducted to further analyse the difference between the nutrient composition and price of dairy milks and plant-based milk. The energy composition in the dairy milk was significantly higher (p < 0.01) when compared with plant-based milks soya almond milk and oat. There was a significant difference (p < 0.01) in dairy milk protein, fat and saturated fat when compared to plant-based milks. The result indicated that the protein, fat, and saturated fat are both significantly higher in cow’s milk. Milk carbohydrate analysis indicate higher composition in dairy milk therefore a significant difference (p < 0.01) was noted when compared to almond milk(except soya and oat milk). There is a significant difference (p < 0.01) in sugar indicating cow’s milk having higher sugar when compared to plant-based milk (except soya milk The sodium composition in the dairy milk and all the plant- based milk showed no significance difference (p > 0.05) in the composition. There was also significant difference (p < 0.05) in comparison of calcium composition of dairy milk and plant-based milk indicating almond milk with lower calcium. The phosphorus composition in dairy milk and plant-based milk indicates that there is a strong significant difference (p < 0.01) (except soya and oat milk). The riboflavin composition was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in dairy milk compared to soya and oat milk. Lastly, there was significant difference (p < 0.01) between price of dairy milk when compared to plant-based milk. The study concludes that there is more nutrient in dairy milk and the price is significantly lower than plant-based milk at which these nutrients are available in dairy milk.

Existing regulation in the UK states that the term ‘milk’ can only be used in labelling to describe products that originate from animals. We conducted an observational study, which surveyed the availability and labelling of milk substitutes in UK supermarkets, and an online experimental study, which assessed the impact of using the term ‘milk’ on milk substitute labelling. In the experimental study, 352 UK adults were randomised to one of the two conditions where they saw milk substitutes that were either labelled with UK regulations (e.g., soya drink) or using the term ‘milk’ (e.g., soya milk). Our primary aims were to assess whether adding the term ‘milk’ to labels would (1) more accurately communicate the uses of milk substitutes or (2) confuse consumers about which products come from an animal source. In our observational study, milk substitutes were readily available and labelling varied significantly. In our experimental study, labelling products with the term ‘milk’ increased understanding of the product's use. However, participants who saw the term ‘milk’ on milk substitute labelling misidentified more milk substitutes as coming from an animal source. Future policy should consider the clarification of such labelling.

Milk is the main source of iodine in the UK; however, the consumption and popularity of plant-based milk-alternative drinks are increasing. Consumers may be at risk of iodine deficiency as, unless fortified, milk alternatives have a low iodine concentration. We therefore aimed to compare the iodine intake and status of milk-alternative consumers with that of cows’ milk consumers. We used data from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey from years 7 to 9 (2014–2017; before a few manufacturers fortified their milk-alternative drinks with iodine). Data from 4-d food diaries were used to identify consumers of milk-alternative drinks and cows’ milk, along with the estimation of their iodine intake (µg/d) (available for n 3976 adults and children ≥1·5 years). Iodine status was based on urinary iodine concentration (UIC, µg/l) from spot-urine samples (available for n 2845 adults and children ≥4 years). Milk-alternative drinks were consumed by 4·6 % (n 185; n 88 consumed these drinks exclusively). Iodine intake was significantly lower in exclusive consumers of milk alternatives than cows’ milk consumers (94 v. 129 µg/d; P < 0·001). Exclusive consumers of milk alternatives also had a lower median UIC than cows’ milk consumers (79 v. 132 µg/l; P < 0·001) and were classified as iodine deficient by the WHO criterion (median UIC < 100 µg/l), whereas cows’ milk consumers were iodine sufficient. These data show that consumers of unfortified milk-alternative drinks are at risk of iodine deficiency. As a greater number of people consume milk-alternative drinks, it is important that these products are fortified appropriately to provide a similar iodine content to that of cows’ milk.