Eating a diverse range of plants everyday=better results in microbiome than a probiotic

Eating a wide variety of plants everyday could be more beneficial to the microbiome than taking a standard probiotic.

New research led by scientists from King’s College London and ZOE has discovered that consuming a daily blend with over 30 different plants resulted in increased populations of ‘favourable’ gut bacteria compared to a probiotic control.

In a randomised controlled trial, participants who consumed a supplement containing a diverse range of vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, herbs, spices, and mushrooms, showed increased populations of 57 species of ‘good’ bacteria of bacteria. Those in the probiotic and control groups saw changes in only 4 and 14 species, respectively.

Those consuming the blend of plants also reported increased energy and reduced hunger, digestive symptoms, constipation, heartburn, and flatulence.

In the trial, 349 adults from the UK were given a 30g daily plant supplement, known as Daily30, and compared against two comparators: a control of 28g of bread croutons, matched for energy (kcal), and a single-strain probiotic capsule containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus, a well-studied probiotic strain.

Other key findings included:

• There were significant differences in those eating the plant blend vs those in the control group, with 55% of participants in the former reporting reductions in indigestion, 35% in the severity of constipation, 18% in heartburn, and 37% in flatulence 
• 51% of participants taking the plant blend reported increased energy levels, 45% reported an increase in happiness, and 35% reported a reduction in severity of constipation, compared with the control group 
• In the plant blend group, the gut bacteria species that increased were on average those linked to favorable health markers, in comparison and the toand the  species that decreased were were linked to unfavourable health markers. This effect was not seen in either the control or probiotic groups.

A sub-group of 34 participants were given a carbohydrate-rich meal either with or without the plant blend added. Adding the plant blend resulted in participants reporting greater energy (43%), fullness (41%), meal satisfaction (22%) and reduced desire to eat (71%) and hunger (17%).

Lead author Professor Sarah Berry, Department of Nutritional Sciences at King's College London and Chief Scientist at ZOE, said: “The fact that Daily30 altered 57 distinct bacterial species in just six weeks reshapes informs informs how we should approach gut health. Rather than introducing isolated strains through a pill, these results prove we can achieve a far greater impact on the gut microbiome composition on the gut microbiome composition by nourishing our existing microbes with a diverse array of plants.

“This research suggests we should focus on plant diversity, and the role that varied fibres play in shaping the microbiome, rather than searching for a single silver bullet.”

Tim Spector, Scientific Co-Founder of ZOE and Professor of Epidemiology at King’s College London, said: "The global supplement industry is worth billions, yet much of it is built on marketing hype rather than robust science. For too long, consumers have been sold synthetic pills and ultra-processed powders as a quick fix. At ZOE, we are leading the way by backing our whole food nutrition with the world-class, rigorous research this industry desperately lacks.”

Reducing protein intake could promote healthy aging

 

Protein-fortified foods are popping up everywhere, from cereal and coffee to even protein water. But a new review covering over 350 papers on protein restriction and aging—publishing July 31 in the Cell Press journal Cell Press Blue—suggests that consuming less protein could have greater health benefits and could, in some cases, extend lifespan. The authors describe how protein restriction slows aging by improving metabolism, changing how cells respond to nutrients, reducing cellular damage, and preserving healthy cell function. 

“It's absolutely crystal clear that there are benefits of protein to muscle growth and exercise response of active individuals,” says Dudley Lamming, the paper’s corresponding author, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “But because most people are relatively sedentary, many people are likely consuming more protein than they actually need, which probably has negative health consequences." 

For decades, scientists have known that eating less calories can extend lifespan in many organisms and reduce the risk of age-related diseases like cancer. But maintaining a calorie-restricted diet is difficult for most people. 

Previous studies have found that eating less protein can extend the lifespan of flies and rodents without reducing their calorie consumption. Several recent clinical trials in humans have also shown that reducing protein intake can reduce weight and fat mass and improve fasting blood sugar in humans, even though protein-restricted individuals tend to eat more calories.  

But at the same time, some studies have found that eating more protein could promote weight loss and reduce age-related muscle loss in older adults when paired with exercise. Those findings prompted US authorities to update its dietary guidelines this year, recommending an increase in daily protein intake to 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight (0.5–0.7 grams per pound), nearly doubling the previous recommendations.   

With Americans consuming more protein than ever and older adults encouraged to boost their intake, Lamming and his colleague set off to review decades of research on protein restriction and aging. Drawing on more than 350 papers, the team outlined potential mechanisms that consistently emerge across studies and may explain how protein-restricted diets could improve health and promote longevity. These mechanisms suggest that protein restriction slows aging by improving metabolism, changing how cells respond to nutrients, reducing cellular damage, and preserving healthy cell function. 

One of the key players is a hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21), which rises when protein intake is low. FGF21 can increase the body’s energy expenditure, improve blood sugar control, and reduce inflammation. Studies in mice have shown that animals with higher FGF21 levels lived longer than normal mice, and the benefit was more pronounced in male mice than female mice. Eating less protein raises FGF21 levels in humans as well. 

The review also highlights several amino acids, the building blocks of protein, that appear to drive many of these effects, including methionine, isoleucine, and valine. Studies show that consuming too much of these amino acids could trigger biological processes that promote growth, increasing the risk of obesity, inflammation, and other age-related diseases.  

“These studies show that the amount of protein sedentary people are eating today may have negative health consequences, at least at the population level," Lamming says. 

He adds that while some people, like pregnant women and some older adults, have higher protein needs, for most sedentary adults, protein-fortified food may not provide the health benefits people expect.  

Lamming notes that athletes often consume large amounts of protein without developing metabolic diseases. He suspects that regular exercise, perhaps by using protein to build strong healthy muscles, helps protect them from the negative health effects associated with a protein-rich diet. 

"Recent recommendations have encouraged people to eat more protein, but they've also encouraged people to exercise more," Lamming says. "We probably need to personalize protein recommendations based not just on age, but also on how physically active people are."  

Nearly 1 in 3 U.S. adults with high blood pressure may need medication

Nearly 23 million Americans with blood pressure 130/80 mm Hg or higher may be eligible for blood-pressure-lowering medications based on the 2025 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline, according to new, independent research published today in the Journal of the American Heart Association, an open access, peer-reviewed scientific journal of the American Heart Association.

The 2025 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology High Blood Pressure guideline advises lifestyle changes — eating a healthy diet, managing weight, getting regular physical activity and reducing salt and alcohol — as a key part of treatment for high blood pressure, with medication prescribed if appropriate. The guideline also suggests healthcare professionals use the American Heart Association’s PREVENTTM (Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs) risk equations to calculate 10-year cardiovascular disease risk among adults (ages 30-79 without known cardiovascular disease) with high blood pressure who do not have established cardiovascular disease.

This study is one of the first detailed assessments of the 2025 guideline on high blood pressure and updated cardiovascular disease risk estimates using the PREVENT risk equations.

“Through this study, our goal was to understand how many people may qualify for treatment according to the updated recommendations in the guideline and estimate how many deaths from any cause and from cardiovascular disease may be prevented in the long term if the guideline recommendations were applied and untreated patients received care that included medication,” said study lead author Mustafa Al-Jarshawi, M.B.Ch.B., M.Sc., MRCPUK, PgCert, an academic clinical fellow in cardiology, member of the Cardiovascular Research Group at the Centre for Prognosis Research at Keele University in the United Kingdom and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester.

Researchers examined links between blood pressure treatments and rates of deaths from all causes and from cardiovascular conditions. Their analysis predicted how many lives may be saved if treatment plans outlined in the 2025 guideline were prescribed.

The data analysis found:

• 81 million U.S. adults had a diagnosis of high blood pressure. Of these, 22.8 million (28%) were guideline-eligible for therapy based on a blood pressure reading of 130/80 mm Hg or higher. 13.1 million (57%) adults were already receiving treatment for high blood pressure, while 9.7 million (43%) remained untreated. Please note: The blood pressure readings were measured during one office visit for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) collected between 2009 and 2018. The current guideline advises taking multiple readings during multiple office visits. This is an important study limitation.
• The analysis estimates that, among eligible adults, receiving blood pressure-lowering medications was associated with a 23% lower risk of dying from any cause and a 50% lower risk of dying from heart-related issues. This was compared to eligible adults who do not receive treatment.
• If treatment with medications was extended to all untreated but eligible adults, the analysis estimates approximately 200,000 all-cause deaths and 162,000 cardiovascular deaths may be prevented during the next decade.
• People eligible for high blood pressure treatment with medication who would benefit most were older, with an average age of 66, and had more health conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

“What stood out most was the size of the treatment gap — more than 40% of people who were clearly eligible under the new guideline were not receiving treatment, as well as the scale of the potential benefit,” Al-Jarshawi said.

“Lifestyle modification remains the foundation of high blood pressure management. Maintaining a healthy weight, consuming a heart-healthy diet, reducing sodium intake, increasing physical activity, getting enough sleep, managing stress and limiting alcohol can meaningfully lower blood pressure and overall cardiovascular risk,” said study senior author Mamas A. Mamas, M.D, DPhil., Professor of Cardiology at Keele University and Honorary Professor of Population Health at the University of Manchester. “For many people, especially those with blood pressure under 140/90 mm Hg and no history of heart disease, stroke, chronic kidney disease or diabetes, lifestyle changes can be enough at first. If your 10-year risk of heart disease is low, with a PREVENT score under 7.5%, maintaining a healthy lifestyle can help you delay or avoid needing medication. Even if you do need medication to lower blood pressure, making lifestyle changes is important for effective treatment and overall health.”

“The 2025 guideline emphasizes a personalized approach to managing high blood pressure by considering blood pressure levels plus 10-year and 30-year overall cardiovascular disease risk. The American Heart Association’s PREVENT risk equations help to identify individuals who could benefit from treatment before a major cardiac event,” said Chair of the American Heart Association’s 2025 guideline writing committee Daniel W. Jones, M.D., FAHA.

“Controlling blood pressure is crucial for long-term health. While lifestyle changes are the foundation for better overall health, people with high blood pressure and higher risk for cardiovascular disease may also need medication to reduce the risk of serious complications from untreated high blood pressure. Healthcare professionals should assess overall cardiovascular risk and work together with their patients to combine lifestyle strategies and medication for optimal blood pressure control.” Jones, who was not involved in this study, is a past volunteer president of the American Heart Association (2007-2008) and is dean and professor emeritus of the University of Mississippi School of Medicine in Jackson, Mississippi.

Study details, background, design and limitations:

• The study had 53% male and 47% female participants, 9.4% had chronic kidney disease, 17 % had diabetes, 47% had dyslipidemia and 15% were current smokers.
• The participants self-identified as 70% white adults, 12% Black adults, 7.2% Mexican American adults, 5.8% multiracial adults and 4.2% other Hispanic adults.
• Study limitations include that researchers did not randomly assign the treatment, which means other unmeasured factors may have influenced treatment and the results. Since blood pressure was measured during a single NHANES visit and researchers examined treatment at only one point in time, the study could not capture how patients’ medication use or treatment routines may have changed over time as they worked with their healthcare teams.

 

Common antihistamines provide little meaningful benefit for eczema

 

It’s typical for someone looking for relief from dry, itchy, red and irritated skin – also known as eczema or atopic dermatitis – to turn to common allergy medications called antihistamines. New research from McMaster University, however, has found that these commonly used medications don’t make a meaningful difference in improving symptoms, and for some of the most commonly used antihistamines, they can cause harm.

Oral antihistamines are a common staple in households around the globe, with many available without a prescription. The belief is these medications will help temper down itching and disruptions to sleep caused by eczema, but clinical practice and guidelines vary in recommending for or against the potential benefits due to lack of clear evidence.

As detailed in the BMJ on July 29, 2026, researchers found that oral antihistamines do not importantly improve the outcomes that matter most in controlling eczema, and can increase the risk of cognitive impairment. To come to this conclusion, a systematic review of 47 randomized trials consisting of 6,230 children and adults with mild to severe eczema was conducted – the most comprehensive analysis to date on the topic.

“Eczema care increasingly focuses on controlling skin and immune inflammation with moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatments, and whole-body treatments like phototherapy, biologics, and oral JAK inhibitors. That makes it important to know whether antihistamines add important benefit or mostly add treatment burden and harm,” says senior author Derek Chu, associate professor with McMaster’s Department of Medicine, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Chair in Allergy, and Lead of Canada’s Allergy Clinical Trials Network.

The review looked at two categories of medications: modern, second-generation antihistamines and older, first-generation antihistamines. The study found that second-generation medications – commonly known under brand names such as Reactine, Claritin, Aerius, Allegra, Rupall, and Blexten – produced small changes in eczema severity and itch, but that relief fell short of what patients and their clinicians would consider as an important improvement.

First-generation antihistamines – commonly found under brand names such as Benadryl, Chlor-Tripolon and Polaramine – produced no noticeable improvement. These older medications, however, likely increase cognitive impairment, such as drowsiness, confusion, slowed thinking, or impaired school or work performance. Such impairments are increasingly recognized to last into the days after use. Among newer second-generation antihistamines, cognitive effects were much lower and differed by drug (bilastine, desloratadine, and fexofenadine being least sedating).

“The findings support moving away from routine antihistamine use in atopic dermatitis care and toward treatments that are more effective, less likely to cause harm, and are more certain to control eczema inflammation. This may also help keep eczema control as simple and straightforward as possible, with patients focusing on high-value treatments,” says Chu, who holds a joint appointment with McMaster’s Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact.

Researchers stress that oral antihistamines have a place in treating allergic conditions such as hay fever, seasonal allergies and hives.

The work was commissioned by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology through the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for the living atopic dermatitis guidelines.

The study used the McMaster-developed grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE), a leading global system for rating the certainty of evidence and translating evidence into clinical recommendations.

Aspects of the study were conducted with The Research Institute of St. Joe's Hamilton.

This McMaster-led research involved partners from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia/University of Pennsylvania, Boston Children's Hospital, National Jewish Health/University of Colorado, UMass Chan Medical School, Arizona State University, George Washington University, Northwestern University, University of Saskatchewan, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, University of Rochester, University of Florida, Children's Hospital Los Angeles/USC, Lakehead University, and Tufts University.

People with lived experience and advocacy partners including the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Global Parents for Eczema Research, National Eczema Association, and Allergy & Asthma Network were also involved.

For long-term health, diet quality matters more than food processing level

 What makes a diet healthy—or not? According to a new study, nutritional quality matters more than processing level when it comes to long-term health.

The study of over 200,000 people found that the overall quality of a person’s diet was strongly associated with their risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and death. However, these associations did not appear to substantially differ based on food processing levels.

“While many ultra-processed foods tend to be of poor nutritional quality and should generally be limited or avoided, processing itself is not inherently harmful,” said Xiaowen Wang, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Nutrition at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Based on the study results, she said individuals should “focus on what you’re eating overall, not just whether it’s processed. A healthy plant-based diet rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and healthy plant oils is beneficial, even if it includes some processed foods.”

Wang will present the findings at NUTRITION 2026, the flagship annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, held July 25–28 in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C.

The nutritional quality of a person’s diet and the amount of ultra-processed foods they consume are often intertwined. Many ultra-processed foods are high in added sugars, sodium and refined carbohydrates, so eating a lot of these foods is associated with poor dietary quality. On the other hand, ultra-processed foods like fortified breakfast cereals, whole grain products, canned beans, or plant-based dairy can still provide important nutrients, fiber, antioxidants and other beneficial compounds, contributing to a healthy diet.

For the study, researchers sought to separate overall diet quality from the level of food processing. Using data from three studies that collectively followed over 200,000 U.S. adults from the 1980s through the 2020s, they used a framework known as the plant-based diet index to assess the degree to which each participant emphasized plant versus animal food products in their diet, the overall quality or healthfulness of their diet, and their consumption of plant-based foods across a wide spectrum of processing levels. The study was not limited to vegans or vegetarians; however, to enable consistent comparisons, the analysis focused on the plant-derived components of participants’ diets rather than animal-derived foods.

After assessing each participant’s overall diet and using the Nova classification system to categorize the processing level of the foods they consumed, researchers grouped participants according to their plant-based eating habits:

• Healthy/ultra-processed (for example, whole grain breakfast cereal with fortified plant-based milk, plant-based yogurt, whole-grain bread, and canned fruit);
• Healthy/minimally-processed (for example, oatmeal with fresh fruit and nuts, quinoa and vegetable salad with olive oil, and homemade lentil soup);
• Unhealthy/ultra-processed (for example, fast food meals, French fries, soda, packaged desserts, and refined snacks); and
• Unhealthy/minimally-processed (for example, white rice, fruit juice, potatoes, and homemade desserts made with refined flour and sugar).

About half of the study participants eventually died or developed heart disease or type 2 diabetes. According to the results, the risk of these outcomes varied significantly depending on overall diet quality: healthy diets were associated with lower risk, while unhealthy diets were associated with higher risk. Within each category, however, the risks were almost identical regardless of whether the diet was ultra-processed or minimally-processed.

The results call into question the use of processing level as a key indicator of healthy eating. Since the Nova classification does not take into account the nutritional value of foods, healthy foods can be classified as ultra-processed while minimally-processed foods can still be unhealthy. 

“Advising people to universally ‘avoid ultra-processed foods’ can lead to lower diet quality since healthy ultra-processed foods are beneficial and unhealthy minimally-processed foods are detrimental,” said Wang. “People should prioritize the quality of foods rather than focusing solely on the level of processing. Aim for more nutrient-dense, high-quality foods to help lower your risk of chronic diseases.”

Based on the findings, she suggested that dietary guidelines should continue to promote established high-quality diets, like the Mediterranean or healthy plant-based diets, rather than focusing on processing level. She noted that encouraging food manufacturers to improve the nutritional content of packaged foods could also help to make following a healthy plant-based diet more convenient and accessible.

The consumption of ultra-processed foods by fathers may influence their babies..

 

 birth weight and body measurements

A study conducted at the University of São Paulo reinforces the importance of including fathers in health and family planning guidance.

A father’s diet can affect his children’s health and body composition before they are even conceived. A study of 43 triads of fathers, mothers, and newborns treated in the public healthcare system of Ribeirão Preto in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, demonstrated this. The analysis revealed that the greater the consumption of ultra-processed foods by the fathers, the higher the birth weight and the greater the accumulation of fat in the baby’s thighs and suprailiac region (commonly known as “love handles”). High birth weight and elevated body fat early in life are risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases in adulthood.

“Maternal nutrition and health before, during, and after the baby’s birth have always received attention, but little is said about the role of the father’s diet. Our study shows that it also matters a great deal for the baby’s health," says Daniela Sartorelli, a professor at the Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine at the University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP) who coordinated the study published in the journal Nutrition Research. 

The study is the first to demonstrate an association between fathers’ consumption of ultra-processed foods and the body composition of newborns. So-called ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations mostly made of food-extracted substances and synthetic chemical additives; the presence of whole foods in the composition of items such as packaged snacks, filled cookies or soft drinks is either scarce or non-existing.

The researchers’ hypothesis is that consuming ultra-processed foods negatively impacts sperm formation, which occurs prior to conception. “Diets rich in ultra-processed foods can create a pro-inflammatory environment in the body, affecting sperm quality and altering the expression of genes that will be passed on to the baby. This process is known as epigenetics. Gene activity can be ‘activated’ or ‘deactivated’ depending on the father’s dietary habits,” explains Mariana Rinaldi Carvalho, a FAPESP doctoral scholarship recipient and co-author of the study.

One of the genes mentioned in the study is IGF-II, which is responsible for fetal growth and is inherited exclusively from the father. “Previous studies have shown that a father’s dietary habits can biochemically modify this gene in sperm through a process called methylation [the addition of a methyl group], thereby influencing fetal development,” says the researcher.

The study is part of a larger project supported by FAPESP that investigates how the diets of mothers and fathers influence the health of newborns.

According to the results, fathers’ consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with higher birth weights, while the effect of mothers’ consumption was the opposite. Consuming these foods early in pregnancy (up to the 16th week) was associated with lower birth weight, shorter height, and smaller head circumference at birth.

“We believe that the impact of maternal consumption of ultra-processed foods on the baby’s birth weight and body measurements may be related to placental development, which depends on many nutrients. Ultra-processed foods are, in fact, nutrient-poor,” Carvalho assesses.

Health predictor

A baby’s birth weight is considered an important predictor of health in both childhood and adulthood. In addition to an increased risk of death, numerous studies have shown that babies born with low (or high) birth weights may develop noncommunicable diseases later in life, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer.

“Although the study didn’t find an increase in total body fat, only fat accumulation in certain regions of the baby’s body, the results suggest that the quality of the father’s diet may also influence fetal development. This is important because, on average, ultra-processed foods accounted for 30% of the total energy consumed by the fathers whose diets were analyzed in the study, particularly processed meats, sugary drinks, and cookies,” Sartorelli notes.

In a previous study, the same team of researchers observed that overweight fathers tended to have babies with lower birth weights. However, by specifically analyzing diet quality, they demonstrated that it isn’t only the father’s weight that matters but also what he eats (read more at agencia.fapesp.br/53400). 

“With these two studies, we’ve shown that it isn’t just a matter of whether the father is overweight. The quality of the father’s diet before conception has a significant impact on the baby’s health,” says Sartorelli. 

Although the sample size was small, with only 43 families, the study is a pioneering effort to investigate the impact of ultra-processed foods on paternal and neonatal health. “The results pave the way for larger studies and reinforce the need to include men, not just women, in family planning guidance,” says Sartorelli. 

Omega-3 fatty acids are highest in milk labeled as organic grass-fed

 — When you pick up a gallon of milk at the store, the nutrients it contains may depend on both what’s on the label and the time of year. A new study reports that omega-3 fatty acids are highest in milk labeled as organic grass-fed and lowest in conventionally-produced milk. Other fatty acids varied by dairy production method and season.

“These findings contribute to a greater understanding of the role that production systems may play in determining the nutritional composition and potential nutritional value of milk,” said Emily Youngmark, MS, a PhD student at the University of Vermont. “The observed differences in fatty acid composition may represent one factor consumers consider when choosing milk products.”

Youngmark will present the findings at NUTRITION 2026, the flagship annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, held July 25-28 in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C. Youngmark conducted the study with Jana Kraft, PhD, associate professor at the University of Vermont.

U.S. consumers can often find a large array of options in the dairy aisle, but the differences among them are not always clear. Since products marketed as organic, grass-fed or pasture-based are often sold at premium prices and promoted as having nutritional advantages, the researchers sought to find out whether production systems actually influence milk composition.

Over the course of a year, the team collected over 300 samples of milk sold by retailers across Vermont and New York. Using information from dairy producers and product labels, they categorized each sample as conventional (63 samples), organic (111), organic grass-fed (91) or non-organic, pasture-based (40).

On average across all seasons, organic grass-fed milk contained significantly more omega-3 fatty acids than all other milks, providing 88 milligrams per serving compared with 25 mg/serving in conventionally-produced milk. By contrast, omega-6 fatty acids were highest in conventionally-produced milk, which contained 166 mg/serving versus 92 mg/serving in organic grass-fed milk. While both types of fatty acids are part of a healthy diet, experts recommend focusing on increasing omega-3 intake, which is linked with a reduced risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and inflammation.

The fatty acid composition of non-organic, pasture-based milk was generally comparable to organic milk, with some seasonal variation. In general, it appears that cows with more access to pasture and fresh forage produce milk with more beneficial fatty acids. Variation in nutritional composition throughout the year likely results from seasonal differences in forage quality.

Although the results revealed significant differences in fatty acid composition among milk samples, researchers noted that the health implications of these differences remain uncertain. Further studies would be needed to determine whether regularly consuming certain types of milk leads to measurable improvements in health outcomes.

“It is important to put these findings in perspective. While the differences we observed may be nutritionally relevant, they are unlikely to produce major health effects on their own. Rather, the fatty acid composition of organic grass-fed milk may contribute as one component of an overall healthy dietary pattern and lifestyle,” said Youngmark.

Conventional milk has no formal definition but generally refers to milk produced from intensively managed dairy systems. Certified organic milk is produced under federally regulated standards that prohibit the use of pesticides, genetically modified feeds and most synthetic additives and require pasture access for at least 120 days per year. Organic grass-fed certification imposes additional requirements, including pasture access for at least 160 days per year and the exclusion of grain products from feed. The term “pasture-based” can appear on both organic and non-organic milk; non-organic, pasture-based milk production systems emphasize pasture access but are not certified organic.