Research

Improving plant-based milk alternatives: a Swiss study

April 30, 2025

746

The rise of plant-based milk alternatives claims sustainability and health benefits, yet their nutrient profiles often fall short, classifying many as ultra-processed. A seminal study by Liechti et al. (2025) provides a deep, data-driven look at 66 plant-based milk products in the Swiss market.

This research is among the first to evaluate these products using the latest Nutri-Score algorithm specifically updated for beverages.

By integrating composition (additives, processed sources) with nutritional quality analysis and using advanced statistics, the study not only reveals the current state of the market but critically identifies precisely where and how reformulation can most effectively lead to healthier options.

Table of Contents

Research objectives and methodology

The study by Liechti and colleagues (2025) had three main objectives:

to analyse the nutrient profiles, composition and quality of plant-based milk alternatives available in the Swiss market;
to identify factors influencing the nutritional and compositional quality of these products;
to explore the potential for reformulation to make these products healthier.

The researchers conducted a comprehensive online market inventory of 66 plant-based milk alternatives from three major Swiss supermarkets between May and July 2023. The products represented 10 different plant sources including oat (n=25), soy (n=10), mixed (n=10), rice (n=6), almond (n=5), potato (n=3), pea (n=2), coconut (n=2), hazelnut (n=2), and cashew (n=1).

The research team examined:

nutrient profiles (calculating Nutri-Scores using its updated algorithm for beverages);
compositional qualities (number and types of food additives);
the percentage of processed versus unprocessed plant sources;
price characteristics.

For statistical analysis, the researchers employed principal component analysis (PCA) with 18 quantitative variables to examine correlations between nutrient profiles, composition and price characteristics.

Major outcomes

Nutritional quality

Only 26% had a Nutri-Score B, such as bovine semi-skimmed milk
Almost half (44%) of the products analysed had a Nutri-Score D, indicating poor nutritional quality
26% had a Nutri-Score C, and 4% had a Nutri-Score E (poorest quality)
No products achieved a Nutri-Score A (highest nutritional quality)
Products based on pea (100%), soy (80%), almond (60%), and coconut (50%) generally had better nutrient profiles (Nutri-Score B)
Rice-based (83%) and mixed plant source products (70%) tended to have poorer nutrient profiles (Nutri-Score D)
21% of products contained added sugars, primarily affecting their nutritional quality.

In March 2023, the Nutri-Score transnational governance framework enhanced its algorithm for plant-based milk alternatives, by reclassifying them from foods to beverages (Huybers & Roodenburg, 2024).

Processed and unprocessed plant sources

Of the 63 products with relevant information, 67% contained unprocessed plant sources
30% contained processed plant sources, while 3% contained both
Products based on oat, soy, almond, hazelnut, and potato most frequently contained raw, unprocessed plant sources
Milk alternatives based on coconut, cashew, and pea were composed entirely of processed plant sources.

Additives

47% of products contained food additives, while 53% were additive-free
A total of 51 food additives were identified across all products
The most common additives were acidity regulators (44%), stabilisers (40%), emulsifiers (8%), and thickeners (8%)
All milk alternatives produced from potato, pea, cashew, and coconut contained additives
No additives were found in products with mixed plant sources.

Factors influencing nutritional quality

The PCA analysis revealed that:

higher carbohydrate (r=0.83), sugar (r=0.76), and calorie (r=0.65) content were associated with worse Nutri-Score classification;
higher protein content (r=-0.69) was associated with better Nutri-Score classification;
products with more processed plant sources from flour and powder (r=0.38) and more ingredients (r=0.42) had worse nutrition profiles;
products with fewer additives had higher sugar content, suggesting additives may be used to replace sugar’s functional properties.

Reformulation potential

The study identified significant opportunities for reformulation:

soy-based products showed the greatest potential for improving Nutri-Score scores;
oat-based products had the highest potential for reducing calorie content (by up to 36 kcal/100 ml) and sugar content (by up to 8 g/100 ml);
the number of additives could be reduced by up to three in several milk alternatives;
the percentage of processed plant sources could be reduced by up to 17% in mixed plant source products.

Discussion and implications

The researchers emphasise that almost half of all products investigated had insufficient nutritional profiles (Nutri-Score D), primarily due to high sugar content. This includes both added sugars and naturally occurring sugars resulting from starch hydrolysis during processing. Rice and oat-based products contained particularly high sugar levels, which can affect the glycaemic index of these products.

The study also highlights that milk alternatives are classified as ultra-processed foods according to the NOVA criteria, containing multiple ingredients and additives. This is concerning as ultra-processed foods have been associated with increased risks of diet related non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and adverse health outcomes.

For successful reformulation, the researchers recommend:

reducing total sugar content (both added and natural sugars);
increasing protein content and quality
reducing the percentage of processed ingredients
minimising the number of additives and ingredients
considering plant sources with lower glycaemic loads
adapting processing technologies to reduce starch hydrolysis

Limitations and future research

The study acknowledges several limitations:

the market inventory was conducted in Switzerland, limiting generalisability to other countries;
oat-based products were overrepresented in the sample;
the study focused primarily on nutritional aspects rather than sensory, physicochemical, or consumer acceptance factors.

Future research should include more representative samples of different plant source varieties, particularly cashew-, hazelnut-, coconut-, pea-, and potato-based (and hemp-, Ed. note) milk alternatives. Additionally, sensory, physicochemical (Anses, 2024), and consumer acceptance studies are needed to ensure successful reformulation efforts.

Interim conclusions

This study provides valuable insights into the reformulation potential of plant-based milk alternatives. The findings highlight the need to transform these products into healthier options, particularly soy-, mixed plant sources-, and oat-based products. The researchers advocate for more harmonised and stricter recommendations for mandatory reformulation goals to improve the nutritional profiles of plant-based milk alternatives while maintaining their sustainability benefits.

As Liechti et al. (2025) conclude: ‘Milk alternatives are seen as important products to help transform our food system towards a more sustainable one; however, their nutritional profile must be improved’.

Nutri-Score power to accelerate reformulation

The 2023 update to Nutri-Score’s algorithm for plant-based milk alternatives demonstrates the system’s adaptability and commitment to accurate nutritional guidance.

Research has proven Nutri-Score highly effective at driving positive food reformulation, as manufacturers actively improve nutrient profiles to achieve better scores (Steenbergen et al., 2024).

This evolution of the Nutri-Score system provides compelling incentives for the food industry to develop healthier plant-based alternatives, delivering substantial benefits for consumer health while ensuring complete transparency.

Dario Dongo

Bibliography

Ammann, J., Grande, A., Inderbitzin, J., & Guggenbühl, B. (2023). Understanding Swiss consumption of plant-based alternatives to dairy products. Food Quality and Preference, 110, 104947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104947
Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail, ANSES. (2024, November 19). Avis relatif à la caractérisation et évaluation des impacts sur la santé de la consommation d’aliments dits ultratransformés (Saisine n° 2022-SA-0155). https://tinyurl.com/yrjukn9b
Antunes, I. C., Bexiga, R., Pinto, C., Roseiro, L. C., & Quaresma, M. A. G. (2023). Cow’s milk in human nutrition and the emergence of plant-based milk alternatives. Foods, 12(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12010099
Cordova, R., Viallon, V., Fontvieille, E., Peruchet-Noray, L., Jansana, A., Wagner, K.-H., Kyrø, C., Tjønneland, A., Katzke, V., Bajracharya, R., Schulze, M. B., Masala, G., Sieri, S., Panico, S., Ricceri, F., Tumino, R., Boer, J. M. A., Verschuren, W. M. M., van der Schouw, Y. T., & Freisling, H. (2023). Consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: A multinational cohort study. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 35, 100771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100771
Drewnowski, A. (2022). Most plant-based milk alternatives in the USDA branded food products database do not meet proposed nutrient standards or score well on nutrient density metrics. Nutrients, 14(22), 4767. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14224767
Huybers, S., & Roodenburg, A. J. C. (2024). Nutri-score of meat, fish, and dairy alternatives: A comparison between the old and new algorithm. Nutrients, 16(6), 892. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16060892
Liechti, C., Mack, G., Walther, B., & Ammann, J. (2025). Transforming plant-based milk alternatives for better health. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 223, 117787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2025.117787
Lüthi, E., Badran-Amstutz, W., & Cornuz, J. (2024). Nutri-Score : que dire aux patientes et patients sur ce thème scientifique d’actualité ?Médecine de première ligne. DOI: 10.53738/REVMED.2024.20.894.2063.
Mehner, E., Melf-Hinrich, E., Herrmann, M., Hochli, B., Holenweger, G., Mann, S., Messner, C., Nemecek, T., Reguant Closa, A., Schäfer, O., Stämpfli, A., Walther, B., & Douziech, M. (2024). Fleisch- und Milchersatzprodukte – besser für Gesundheit und Umwelt? VDF Hochschulverlag. https://vdf.ch/fleisch-und-milchersatzprodukte.html
Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Levy, R. B., Moubarac, J.-C., Louzada, M. L., Rauber, F., Khandpur, N., Cediel, G., Neri, D., Martinez-Steele, E., Baraldi, L. G., & Jaime, P. C. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936-941. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003762
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Springmann, M. (2024). A multicriteria analysis of meat and milk alternatives from nutritional, health, environmental, and cost perspectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(50), 2319010121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319010121
Steenbergen, E., Beulens, M. J. W. J., & Temme, E. H. M. (2024). Nutri-Score in the European food retail supply: A potential incentive for food reformulation? Nutrients, 16(23), 4184. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16234184
Walther, B., Guggisberg, D., Badertscher, R., Egger, L., Portmann, R., Dubois, S., Haldimann, M., Kopf-Bolanz, K., Rhyn, P., Zoller, O., Veraguth, R., & Rezzi, S. (2022). Comparison of nutritional composition between plant-based drinks and cow’s milk. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9, 988707. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.988707