Milk substitutes continue to grow their share of the fluid milk market, even though they don't compare to the amount of calcium, healthy fat and protein that comes in a glass of cow's milk. Now, new research shows another reason why these substitutes don't quite measure up.
Canadian scientists found that young children drinking milk alternatives were twice as likely to have low vitamin D levels in their blood compared to children drinking milk from cows. Almond, soy and rice milk have been a popular choice of parents for children with allergies or lactose intolerance, and some parents feel these milk substitutes have health benefits for kids who can drink regular milk as well. Unfortunately, these alternatives don't contain the vitamin D needed in a young child's diet.
The study, reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, asked parents to document the amount and type of milk consumed by 2,831 Toronto preschoolers, and the children's vitamin D blood levels were measured. The majority, 87 percent, drank mostly cow's milk, while 13 percent drank milk alternatives. Researchers found low vitamin D levels in just 5 percent of the children who drank cow's milk, compared to 11 percent of children who only drank milk substitutes.
Vitamin D helps the body absorb calcium and is fundamental for building strong teeth and bones. Very few foods naturally contain vitamin D, but some, including milk, are fortified with the important vitamin.
Milk fortification began in the 1930s in an effort to combat rickets, a vitamin D deficiency that was quite common at the time. Today, all cow's milk produced in Canada must be fortified with vitamin D, and in the U.S., most milk is voluntarily fortified with 100 IU/cup. In addition, both countries mandate the fortification of infant formula.
The same is not true for milk substitutes, for which there are no fortification requirements, and its nutritional content, which varies from product to product, often pales in comparison to cow's milk.
