Move over, oat milk: Lactose-free dairy is having a moment
Why it matters: Health-conscious consumers — many of them lactose intolerant — are redefining what "healthy milk" means and moving away from almond and oat drinks.
By the numbers: Sales of lactose-free and lactose-reduced dairy milk (think: brands Fairlife and Lactaid) grew about 14% in the past year, and have driven dairy's overall comeback, per NielsenIQ data shared with Axios.
Meanwhile, plant-based milk sales have dropped 5% year over year — "very counter to what we've seen for many years," says Chris Costagli, NIQ VP of food insights and a dairy industry veteran.
Catch up quick: Soy milk led the alt-milk charge in the '90s, followed by almond (still the category leader despite a recent dip) and oat.
What's happening: Consumers are returning to cow's milk because they're getting wise to the fact that there are additives like texturizers in many plant-based alternatives, Costagli says.
Plus, lactose-free dairy milk offers inherent protein and calcium, which is why dietitian Tamara Duker Freuman says she's switched lactose-intolerant patients to it.
And taste is a factor. Unlike plant-based milks, dairy milk tends to froth better, taste creamier and not curdle in hot beverages.
Between the lines: Lactose-free dairy milk is typically cow's milk with an added enzyme that breaks down the lactose.
Zoom in: Lactose-free milk Fairlife, which is filtered to have high protein and low sugar, surpassed $1 billion in annual retail sales in early 2022.
Fairlife's rise hasn't been without controversy: There's a Fairlife class action lawsuit over new animal cruelty allegations. Fairlife didn't respond to Axios' request for comment about this.
Yes, but: There's still room for plant-based milk in a healthy diet — especially if you opt for varieties without carrageenan or added gums, Freuman says.
The bottom line: Whether you're pouring oat, almond or ultra-filtered cow's milk, today's consumers are getting smarter about what's actually in the carton.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
21 hours ago
- Axios
At-home cervical cancer test rolls out in California
The first FDA-approved at-home cervical cancer screening device launched this week in California. Why it matters: Cervical cancer is largely preventable, yet 1 in 4 U.S. women aren't up to date on screenings for the disease, per the CDC. Teal Health's goal is to make the testing experience feel less invasive than a Pap smear, which can often cause pain. Driving the news: The Teal Wand allows people to self-collect a vaginal sample to test for HPV, the virus that causes nearly all cervical cancers. The San Francisco women's health company spearheading the device says it uses the same HPV test used in clinics and merely differs in the method of collection. The big picture: California records about 7.3 cervical cancer cases per 100,000 people every year, slightly under the national rate of 7.5. The incidence rate varies among racial groups, however, with Hispanics generally seeing higher figures. Nationwide, Black and Indigenous people also experience higher rates of cervical cancer and mortality compared to white women. "Several studies have shown that the availability of self-screening can boost participation in cervical cancer screening among underscreened persons—a population most likely to benefit in terms of cancer prevention," UCSF obstetrician-gynecologist George F. Sawaya told Axios via email. In 2023, cervical cancer screenings in the U.S. remained 14% lower than pre-pandemic levels, per a March journal article. Yes, but: It's equally critical to ensure those with positive test results get reliable follow-ups and treatment, Sawaya added. How it works: To take a sample, the wand — similar to a tampon in its dimensions — is inserted into the vagina and deploys a sponge to collect cells from the cervix. Once the sponge is extracted, it's placed in a vial and mailed to the lab. Teal medical providers then review the results and follow up via telehealth. The kit, which is shipped to your door, is available for purchase online and costs $99 with in-network insurance and $249 via credit card or HSA/FSA payment. By the numbers: Self-collected samples using the wand have proven to detect cervical precancer 96% of the time, similar to clinician-collected ones, Teal Health's 16-site clinical trials found. Eighty-six percent of participants said they'd be more likely to stay up to date with screenings if they could do it at home, per the trials. What they're saying: A lot of people don't recognize the importance of getting tested regularly because it's not always clear what a Pap smear is for, Teal Health co-founder and CEO Kara Egan told Axios. Lack of appointments, time conflicts and discomfort with the exam are also top reasons for not screening, Egan added. The wand was designed to alleviate those concerns, she said, offering the "same accuracy, but just comfortably and privately from home."
Axios
3 days ago
- Axios
How Trump is making pot a MAGA issue
President Trump is opening the door to reclassifying marijuana, potentially allowing the GOP to claim another health issue that's long been associated with Democrats. Why it matters: The administration has already flipped the political script when it comes to banning food dyes, calling for an end to animal lab testing and embracing psychedelics for mental health. Rescheduling marijuana could be a big step toward establishing an interstate cannabis trade — and turning a policy long sought by congressional Democrats and promoted by the Biden administration into reality. Driving the news: Trump brought up the subject during a recent event with donors at his Bedminster, New Jersey, country club after marijuana companies contributed millions of dollars to his political organizations, the Wall Street Journal first reported. While falling short of legalization, designating pot to have medical value and less dangerous than its Schedule I designation would be a major jolt to cannabis companies that run on thin margins, per Axios' Dan Primack. It would allow them to deduct business expenses on their taxes and also reduce restrictions on cannabis research. The industry has mounted"a very powerful PR effort," Kevin Sabet, founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana who served in the White House Office of Drug Control Policy under three administrations, told Axios. "They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars in total to influence the president from Florida onward, whether it's inauguration, whether it's million-dollar-plate fundraisers in New Jersey. They are going all out because they want this tax break." Catch up quick: Polling from the Pew Research Center and others have shown increasing support for marijuana legalization across the political spectrum, with 88% favoring medical or recreational use. "Cannabis has become a less partisan [issue] over time, and this has been accelerated by the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products," Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, told Axios. "Heck, I was just in Indiana where someone could buy THC drinks in grocery stores and bars — I don't even see that here in California." While much of Trump's orbit has been more circumspect about making such a change, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a notable exception, Sabet said. Kennedy supported legalization of marijuana during his presidential campaign and said it could open up more research into risks and benefits, although he has also warned about potential "catastrophic impacts" on users. There's still a big difference between rescheduling a drug and federal legalization, which demonstrates the political winds of change are moving slowly. Multiple state ballot initiatives seeking to legalize recreational pot have failed over the last several years. Trump, like Biden, is a teetotaler, and neither has expressed great enthusiasm for legalization over the years, said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. "The way to think about it is some people wanted Biden to legalize. Biden didn't want to do that, so he said, 'Well, I'll suggest rescheduling, which will make some people think that we've made a big change, but it isn't really,'" Caulkins said. Friction point: The rescheduling of marijuana means the government would be officially recognizing its medicinal uses. That's difficult when the quality and consistency of the botanical version of the drug isn't like more conventional pharmaceuticals, Caulkins said. The move also would transfer cannabis to the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, which could create headaches for the agency. The FDA would be "between a rock and a hard place," Caulkins said. "They either have to ignore their own rules and regulations and say, we're just going to let the cannabis happen without the usual standards for medicine, or we're going to bite the bullet and crack down on a multibillion-dollar industry that's been operating for years now." The big picture: A rescheduling would be further evidence of the MAGA world's ability to take the reins on issues once associated with the progressive movement. "For the left, it's been much more about sort of social justice and righting the wrongs of the drug war," Sabet said. On the other hand: "You have part of the MAGA wing that has embraced this," he said. "It's about business, it's about money." Yes, but: This is already stirring up some disagreement among Trump's base. "I hope this doesn't happen," Turning Point USA founder and key MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk posted on X. "Everything already smells like weed, which is ridiculous. Let's make it harder to ruin public spaces, not easier." Relaxing marijuana rules also is stirring concern among state GOP lawmakers in states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Even administration officials such as FDA commissioner Marty Makary have posted warnings about health risks from cannabis use. Reality check: Trump was vague on the timing of any move when he confirmed the WSJ's reporting on Monday, saying: "We're only looking at that. It's early."
Axios
4 days ago
- Axios
Texas woman claiming she was tricked into abortion sues pill provider
A Texas woman sued a prominent abortion pill supplier and a former sexual partner, alleging he laced a drink with medication that he obtained from the service, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in federal court. The big picture: Anti-abortion attorneys general have targeted telemedicine service providers that send abortion pills to patients with the protection of "shield laws," like Aid Access, the Austrian-based group named in the lawsuit. The woman is represented by former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent anti-abortion attorney. He previously has represented men who wanted to bring legal actions against people who facilitated their partners' abortion, per The Washington Post. Driving the news: The wrongful-death suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleges that the man who impregnated the woman laced a hot chocolate he prepared for her with abortion pills he obtained from Aid Access, ending her pregnancy. The woman argued in the complaint that the nonprofit and its founder were criminally responsible for the man's alleged violations of Texas code because "they knowingly aided his provision of abortion-inducing drugs to a pregnant woman." It also alleges the organization violated federal law by delivering the medication via the mail. It cites U.S. law that bans the mailing of materials deemed "obscene, lewd, lascivious," such as those related to abortion. "Performing or assisting an illegal abortion in Texas is an act of murder," the lawsuit reads. Zoom out: Aid Access, which did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment, says on its website that it has facilitated over 200,000 "online abortions" to women in the U.S. since it was founded in 2018. Despite years of bans and restrictions on reproductive care, the number of abortions in the U.S. continued to rise in 2024, Axios' April Rubin reported. Texas had the country's highest number of medication abortions via telehealth under shield law protections. State of play: Texas law bans abortion in nearly all cases — with exceptions for when the mother's life or a major bodily function is at risk. The lawsuit comes as a GOP lawmaker in the Lone Star State is reintroducing legislation that would allow lawsuits targeting the use of medication to end pregnancies, CBS News reported. That proposal, per CBS, also takes aim at shield laws that safeguard clinicians offering telehealth abortion care to patients in states with restrictions. Flashback: Texas has emerged as a hub for legal challenges to abortion pills. Last month, a Texas man sued a California doctor who allegedly mailed his girlfriend abortion pills. And earlier this year, a Texas judge ordered a doctor to pay a penalty of more than $100,000 and stop prescribing and sending abortion pills to patients in Texas under New York's shield law. But a New York county clerk has refused to file judgment against the doctor, citing the New York state shield law, prompting legal action from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
