Shining a light through the murky waters of milk
Joris Driepinter, a fictional character from the Dutch milk campaign in the 1960s and 1970s
Author: Meira van Schaik (CUSAP Blog Chief Editor)
If you grew up in the Netherlands, you probably remember the famous slogan “Melk is goed voor elk” (“Milk is good for everyone”). Dutch parents – mine included – accepted it as gospel, thanks in part to decades of government-supported dairy propaganda. The U.S. has its own version of the same story: federal dietary guidelines promoting three servings of dairy a day, government-funded “Got Milk?” campaigns, and even literal cheese vaults where the USDA stores over a billion pounds of surplus cheese because the government buys up excess dairy to stabilize the industry.
Milk is not just a beverage. It is also a government-backed project. But is it actually “good for everyone”? Or have we been swallowing a convenient myth?
The Nutrient Argument: True but Incomplete
Milk undeniably contains beneficial nutrients: protein, phosphorus, calcium, and vitamins such as B2, D, B12, and -if full-fat- vitamin A. Some studies show that dairy intake is associated with a slightly reduced risk of colon cancer, though calcium supplements show a similar effect, suggesting it’s not dairy itself but calcium that plays the role.
But the story gets more complicated when we look at one of milk’s most persistent claims: Is dairy essential for strong bones?
Despite decades of such messaging, studies comparing fracture risk between high and low milk consumers have produced inconsistent results. One large Swedish study even reported higher hip fracture risk and mortality in women with high milk consumption. International comparisons show the same: countries with the highest dairy consumption do not have lower bone fracture rates than countries where milk drinking is minimal.
Calcium is indeed important, but it can be found in many foods. And while the vitamin D and phosphorus found in milk help calcium absorption, the notion that calcium cannot be absorbed from plant-based sources is untrue. Although some plant foods contain absorption inhibitors (like oxalates and phytates), there are several plant sources with calcium bioavailabilities comparable to or exceeding that of milk.
The Sour Side of the Dairy Story
A major, often overlooked reality is that around 70% of the global population is lactose intolerant. For these individuals, milk is not a nutrient-rich “superfood” but a common trigger for bloating, cramps, gas, and diarrhea. Promoting milk as universally healthy ignores the biological fact that the ability to digest lactose into adulthood is a relatively uncommon genetic adaptation rather than the global norm.
Beyond lactose intolerance, dairy carries additional health considerations. Milk allergy, especially in infants and young children, remains one of the most common food allergies worldwide. Full-fat dairy also contains saturated fat and naturally occurring trans fats that may contribute to elevated cardiovascular risk when consumed excessively. Environmental contaminants such as dioxins, heavy metals, and pesticide residues can enter the milk supply through feed and agricultural conditions. Hormonal exposure adds another layer of complexity: while the European Union bans hormone use in dairy cows, the United States permits certain hormone treatments, fueling ongoing debate about potential long-term effects.
A worrying new trend promoted by some “wellness” influencers is the resurgence of raw milk consumption. Proponents claim it’s more natural and therefore healthier, but this is misleading at best and dangerous at worst. Raw milk can harbor harmful pathogens, including Listeria, E. coli, Campylobacter, and Salmonella, which can cause serious illness. Pasteurization, invented by Louis Pasteur in the 1860s and refined for milk in the early 20th century, was a major breakthrough precisely because it made milk safe to drink. There is no reason to romanticize pre-pasteurization practices; drinking raw milk today is a step backward for public health.
There is also an ongoing scientific discussion about dairy and cancer risk. Some observational studies report that high intakes of cheese or high-fat dairy are associated with increased breast cancer mortality, and a large meta-analysis has found that higher dairy consumption correlates with an increased risk of prostate cancer. These results do not prove that dairy causes cancer, but they do complicate the simplistic idea of milk and dairy products as universally beneficial foods.
The Animal Welfare Reality Behind the Carton
Most consumers never see the system that produces their milk, and the reality behind it is rarely discussed. To produce milk continuously, cows must give birth roughly once a year, and nearly all of these pregnancies are achieved through artificial insemination. Shortly after birth, calves are usually separated from their mothers (often within hours), a practice that causes significant distress to both animals. Female calves are raised to become the next generation of dairy cows, while male calves are typically slaughtered for veal or beef. Numerous reports describe mother cows calling out for their calves for days after separation.
Although a cow could naturally live for around twenty years, her life in the dairy industry is far shorter. Most are slaughtered at four to six years of age, when declining milk production makes them less profitable. Throughout their lives, many cows spend most or all of their time indoors; some remain tethered in place, and space or bedding can be minimal. The physical demands of producing such high volumes of milk contribute to common health problems, including lameness, reproductive complications, and mastitis, a painful udder infection. Routine procedures such as dehorning, which in some settings may still be performed without adequate anesthesia, add further stress.
In the United States, the use of rBST (recombinant Bovine Somatotropin, a synthetic growth hormone banned in the EU and Canada) remains legal and is associated with elevated rates of mastitis and lameness. All of this occurs within an industry where modern US dairy cows now produce more than four times the amount of milk they did in 1945, the result of selective breeding and a system of exploitation designed to maximize output.
In the EU, overall animal‑welfare legislation is among the world’s strictest, and individual countries and industry groups have developed welfare criteria for dairy cattle, though EU‑wide standards for dairy production are limited and often rely on voluntary certification schemes rather than binding regulation. While existing rules set basic welfare requirements (such as adequate feeding and space), common industry practices, including early separation of calves from their mothers and slaughter of cows once milk production declines, remain legally permitted.
Environmental Costs: A Global Footprint Hidden in Plain Sight
Dairy farming carries a significant ecological footprint across the world. In major dairy-producing regions (like the Netherlands for example) cows generate enormous amounts of manure, often far beyond what the local land can naturally absorb. When this waste builds up, excess nitrogen can cause damage to soil health and aquatic ecosystems.
The dairy industry is also a major contributor to methane emissions. With more than 270 million dairy cows worldwide, the sector releases large quantities of this potent greenhouse gas. Countries have to find a way to reduce these emissions if they want to fight climate change. Methane emissions from the dairy industry have begun to feature in climate policy discussions. For example, several major dairy companies pledged at COP28 (the 28th UN Climate Change Conference) to publicly disclose their methane emissions, and the EU has approved feed additives aimed at reducing enteric methane from cows. Nevertheless, these companies are not bound by specific methane reduction targets, and these voluntary measures remain far too limited to cut the sector’s methane emissions at the scale and speed needed to meet global climate goals.
Land use further amplifies dairy’s environmental impact. Millions of hectares are devoted to growing feed crops such as corn and soy, relying heavily on fertilizers, irrigation, and pesticide use. In tropical regions, large-scale soy cultivation tied to global livestock demand has contributed to deforestation in places like the Amazon. Meanwhile, in countries that produce the dairy, natural grasslands and diverse ecosystems have been replaced by large dairy operations, accelerating habitat loss.
These issues illustrate how the modern dairy industry affects ecosystems far beyond the farm itself, harming the environment on a global scale.
Plant Milks: A Good Alternative?
Critics often claim that plant-based milks lack nutrients and therefore cannot replace cow’s milk. This overlooks the fact that the nutritional profiles of plant milks vary widely, and each offers different benefits depending on someone’s dietary needs and preferences.
Oat milk, for example, is frequently criticized for being high in carbohydrates, yet those carbs come with soluble fiber that lowers the glycemic index and supports digestion. Most commercial oat milks are also fortified and provide minerals such as calcium, potassium, and iron, making them more nutritionally robust than critics suggest.
For those seeking a low-calorie option, almond milk is typically the most suitable. Almond milk also contains low saturated fat, and high levels of vitamin E and is often calcium-fortified. However, it is important to keep in mind that almond milk is much lower in protein compared to other types of milk.
Soy milk remains the closest nutritional match to cow’s milk, offering complete protein and, in fortified versions, similar levels of calcium and B12. Despite this, soy is one of the most heavily demonized plant-based substitutes. The long-standing myth that soy increases breast cancer risk is outdated; the phytoestrogens found in soy are not the same as human estrogen and do not have the same effects on our bodies. These plant estrogens (or isoflavones) are very weak compared with human estrogen. They bind much less strongly to estrogen receptors and tend to interact with a receptor type (ER-beta) that is linked to prevention of excessive cell proliferation. In fact, one North American cohort study found that replacing dairy milk with soy milk was associated with a lower breast cancer risk. Similarly, a study in Japan showed that consumption of soy products and isoflavones was linked with a decreased risk of prostate cancer in men.
Environmental criticisms of plant milks also tend to be misplaced. For example, almond milk has been criticised for its large water requirement, but with 371 litres of water needed to produce one litre, this remains far less than the global average of 628 litres needed for one litre of cow’s milk. Furthermore, while soy cultivation is linked to deforestation, nearly all of that soy is grown to feed livestock, not to produce soy milk. Consuming soy directly is far more land- and resource-efficient than first feeding it to animals and then consuming their milk and meat.
So… Is Melk Really “Goed voor Elk”?
Milk is undeniably nutrient-rich and can be part of a healthy diet for certain people. But the blanket claim that milk is essential and universally beneficial is outdated. Milk is not good for the majority of the world population who are lactose intolerant. It’s not good for the cows, whose exploitation fuels the industry. It’s not good for the environment, with substantial methane emissions. And its health benefits are more nuanced than the dairy lobby suggests.
The real question isn’t whether milk is “bad”: it’s why we’ve been told for generations that it is universally good. Perhaps the answer has less to do with human health, and more to do with politics, economics, and a very powerful dairy industry.
Students Against Pseudoscience 