Next Article in Journal
Breast Milk Constituents and the Development of Breast Milk Jaundice in Neonates: A Systematic Review
Next Article in Special Issue
The Gliadin Hydrolysis Capacity of B. longum, L. acidophilus, and L. plantarum and Their Protective Effects on Caco-2 Cells against Gliadin-Induced Inflammatory Responses
Previous Article in Journal
Attenuation of Oxidative Stress and Regulation of AKT Signaling by Vanillic Acid during Bovine Pre-Implantation Embryo Development
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fecal Calprotectin in Self-Reported Milk Intolerance: Not Only Lactose Intolerance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/nu15102258
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Soy, Rice and Oat Drinks: Investigating Chemical and Biological Safety in Plant-Based Milk Alternatives

by
Roberta Giugliano
1,*,
Noemi Musolino
2,
Valentina Ciccotelli
1,
Carla Ferraris
2,
Valentina Savio
1,
Barbara Vivaldi
1,
Carlo Ercolini
1,
Daniela Manila Bianchi
2 and
Lucia Decastelli
2
1
National Reference Laboratory of Pesticides in Cereals and Feed (NRL), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria E Valle D’Aosta, Piazza Borgo Pila 39/24, 16129 Genoa, Italy
2
National Reference Centre for the Detection of Substances and Products Causing Allergies or Intolerances in Food (CReNaRiA), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria e Valle D’Aosta, Via Bologna 148, 10154 Turin, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2023, 15(10), 2258; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15102258
Submission received: 13 April 2023 / Revised: 6 May 2023 / Accepted: 8 May 2023 / Published: 10 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Intolerance and Food Allergy: Novel Aspects in a Changing World)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
During the last decades, plant-based milk has become very appreciated by consumers, becoming a staple ingredient, especially for alternative breakfasts. Milk contains lactose, which is a sugar hydrolysed by the lactase enzyme. Lactose intolerance and lactose malabsorption are very common food intolerances among individuals. However, a lot of consumers consider themselves as lactose intolerant on the basis of self-reported intolerance and start to avoid dairy products, ignoring that plant-based milk alternatives are not nutritionally comparable to animal milk, especially in terms of protein intake. The aim of this study is to grow folder knowledge of the security of plant-based drinks, helping competent authorities to issue a risk assessment and to apply national plans about consumer safety. Results show that proper sanitary practices, such as pasteurization, are necessary in plant-based milk alternatives as well as in dairy milk. Chemical analysis has highlighted that there are no pesticide risks for consumers.

1. Introduction

Over the past decade, an increase in demand for alternative healthy foods from consumers has been recorded. Recent studies estimate that the global milk alternatives market could potentially exceed revenues of $38 billion by 2024. Asia-Pacific (APAC) is the fastest growing region in the market, while North America remains the biggest consumer region (Arizton Advisory and Intelligence 2019, website). According to IRI 2021 data, spread by Unione Italiana Food, the Italian market recorded a +9.9% increase in plant-based products, a trend confirmed also in the first semester of 2022 (Italia Fruit News 2022, website). Due to cow milk allergy, lactose intolerance, calories and hypercholesterolemia concerns, consumption of milk alternatives such as plant-based drinks has increased, especially soya drink consumption [1,2]. The trend towards changing food lifestyles (flexitarian, vegetarian and vegan lifestyles) seems to be the main driver behind it, especially in developed countries [3,4].
Lactose is the sugar component of milk, synthesized by D-galactose and D-glucose subunits via β-1,4 glycosidic bond and hydrolysed by the enzyme lactase phlorizin hydrolase (colloquially, lactase) [5]. Lactose intolerance is one of the most common food intolerances among individuals [6], and it is defined as “the onset of gastrointestinal symptoms (i.e., diarrhoea, abdominal cramping, audible bowel, flatulence, vomiting) following a single-dose challenge of ingested lactose by an individual with lactose maldigestion, which are not observed when the person ingests an indistinguishable placebo” [7]. Lactose maldigestion refers to the non-digestion and/or non-absorption of lactose in the small intestine, and the most common cause is reduction in lactase production (also known as lactase non-persistence) during adulthood [8].
Lactose intolerance is very common among people: about 57% of people worldwide are affected by confirmed lactose intolerance [9], but the percentage may be different both among ethnic populations [9,10] and because self-diagnosis of milk intolerance is common [6]. According to the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) [10], lactose intolerance affects about 70% of the world adult population, and in Europe, according to Lember [11], it varies from around 2% in Scandinavia to about 70% in South Italy (Sicily). On the other hand, cow’s milk allergy (CMA) reaches about 0.50%–3.50% of individuals [12,13].
In case of lactose intolerance [14,15,16], the treatment is a diet with reduced lactose content: some studies suggest that the vast majority of subjects may tolerated up to 12 g of lactose per day with no or minor symptoms, but it is not possible to determine a single threshold of lactose owing to the great variation in individual tolerances [7]. Regarding CMA, the only solution is the exclusion of cow’s milk and its derivates, and milk can be substituted by donkey milk, for example [17,18]. In addition, thanks to their growing popularity [19], plant-based beverages are also widely used to replace milk, as they are similar in sensorial aspects regarding colour, texture and sometimes flavour [20]. However, the consumption of plant-based beverages should be carried out with caution and after a proper diagnosis: in fact, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 10 to 14% of the infants with CMA will also become allergic to soy [21,22]. Specifically, soy-, oat- and rice-based beverages are not suitable alternatives for food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) patients, as such food are common triggers [23,24].
In case of symptoms of lactose intolerance, a diagnosis can be performed through several methods. The most frequently used is HBT, based on the fermentation of undigested lactose and the consequent production of gas by intestinal microbiota, thus leading to the diagnosis of lactose malabsorption [9]. During HBT, fasted subjects drink a lactose-loaded solution (25–50 g of lactose [25]) and then breath samples are analysed to collect the value of hydrogen [13].
However, a lot of people consider themselves as lactose intolerant without any diagnostic test performed [26] and so start to avoid dairy products on the basis of self-reported intolerance. Indeed, according to Casellas et al. [27], subjects usually associate ingestion of lactose dairy products with symptoms of lactose intolerance but without diagnosis of insufficient lactase activity.
Looking carefully, commercial plant-based beverages are not nutritionally comparable to animal milk, as most consumers think. Milk and dairy products are an important source of proteins (i.e., caseins and whey proteins), essential amino acids, fats [28] and micronutrients such as calcium, vitamin D, potassium, magnesium and riboflavin [6]. The nutritional composition of plant-based beverages is different according to the raw materials used to produce them: for example, oat milk is a source of bioactive compounds such as β-glucan and soy milk contains isoflavones and phytosterols. In particular, the protein content of plant-based drinks can be lower than we would expect, and this is because the principal ingredient is water [19,29]. Approximately 50% of commercial plant-based milk alternatives contain little (< 0.5%) or even no protein, while only selected soy-based drink analogues reach the higher protein level of dairy milk (3.7%) [29].
According to Vernia [3,19,30], these subjects’ health is more compromised and they have higher risk of developing osteoporosis because of the lack of important nutrients such as calcium provided by dairy products [19,20]. These results are in accordance with the studies of McCarthy et al. [31], Vainio et al. [32] and Schyver and Smith [33], where consumers are reported to perceive plant-based drinks as a healthier alternative to cow’s milk.
Plant-based foods and vegan diets can play a role in the composition of the gut microbiome, with beneficial effects such as reduction of inflammation, energy balance and insulin sensitivity [34,35]. Recent studies have reported that oat phenolic compounds and oat β-glucan promote weight loss and reduction of lipids in the blood thanks to the stimulation of liver function and, in the intestine, to the increasing abundance of Bacteroides and reduced Firmicutes [36]. However, as reported by other authors, there are few studies that compare the nutritional composition of different milk substitutes to guide the population about the best alternative to compose their diet of [19,36]. Attached here is Table 1, showing the nutritional values of the three types of plant-based beverages investigated and the whole cow’s milk (data were purchased by the official website of the United States government of the Department of Agriculture).
The values in Table 1 are derived through state-of-the-art chemical analyses, computations and other approaches, as reported in this link: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/data-documentation.html (accessed on 7 May 2023). Therefore, Table 1 is calculated from results obtained by analysing commercial plant-based drinks sold in markets. As can be seen from Table 1 and by Sakkas’s team study [34], there is a wide variety of vegetable drinks in the shops that are enriched with vitamins and minerals and that achieve better nutritional values than the non-fortified ones [34].
Industrial production of plant-based drinks is basically prepared with grain milling and water addition. These two ingredients produce a slurry preparation, which is hydrolysed with enzymes and finally filtrated [37].
In terms of environmental impact, a more plant-based diet in drinks consumption will certainly support a more sustainable lifestyle [3], but microbiological and chemical safety is still to be evaluated carefully.
Microbiological studies confirm that plant-based beverages might be a good growing ground for pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. [38,39,40]. In addition, pesticides are widely used in cereals and legumes agriculture, and EU national authorities monitor food chain samples constantly.
In the current literature, there are few studies that take into account plant-based drink issues, and the creation of a risk database is still ongoing. The aim of this study is to increase knowledge about the security of plant-based beverages and help competent authorities to fill out risk assessment and national consumer safety plans [38].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection and Collection of Samples

In order to evaluate plant-based beverages’ chemical and microbiological safeties, the research was conducted on a representative selection of beverages available on the local markets of metropolitan Turin area (North Italy). Total samples consisted of 33 soy drinks, 10 oat drinks and 17 rice drinks. Each category included different volumes, brands, lot numbers, product lines (i.e., no added sugars, organic production, flavour) and thermal processes (Table 2). Although the variety of vegetable drinks is very wide, as reported by [34], we have focused this study on the most widespread varieties on the market: soy, rice and oats [4,41].
All microbiological and chemical analyses were performed by accredited laboratories in accordance with ISO17025.

2.2. Pesticides Analysis

All pesticide standards, reagents and solvents were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Below are listed the pesticides detected: 2-Pheylphenol, Acrinathrin, Aldrin, Azoxystrobin, Bifenthrin, Bixafen, Boscalid, Bromopropylate, Bromuconazole, Cadusafos, cis-Chlordane, trans-Chlordane, Chlorfenvinphos, Chlorpropham, Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos-methyl, Cyfluthrin, λ-Cyhalothrin, Cypermethrin, Cyprodinil, p,p’-DDD e o,p’-DDT, p,p’-DDE, p,p’-DDT, cis-Deltamethrin, Diazinon, Dieldrin, Difenoconazole, α-Endosulfan, β-Endosulfan, Endosulfan-sulphate, Endrin, Endrin-ketone, EPN, Esfenvalerate, Ethion, Etofenprox, Famoxadone, Fenarimol, Fenazaquin, Fenitrothion, Fenpropathrin, Fenpropimorph, Fenthion, Fenvalerate, Fipronil, Fipronil-sulfone, Flucythrinate, Fludioxonil, Fluquinconazole, τ-Fluvalinate, α-HCH, β-HCH, Heptachlor, Heptachlor-endo-epoxide (isomer A, trans), Heptachlor-exo-epoxide (isomer B, cis), Iprodione, Isocarbophos, Isoprothiolane, Kresoxim-methyl, Lindane (γ-HCH), Malaoxon, Malathion, Mepanipyrim, Methacrifos, Metalaxyl, Methoxychlor, Metolachlor, Oxadixyl, Oxychlordane, Paraoxon-methyl, Parathion, Parathion-methyl, Pendimethalin, Permethrin, Phenthoate, Phosalone, Phosmet, Piperonyl-butoxide, Pirimiphos, Pirimiphos-methyl, Procymidone, Profenofos, Propargite, Pyridaben, Pyrimethanil, Resmethrin, Spiromesifen, Tebufenpyrad, Tefluthrin, Tetramethrin, Tolclofos-methyl, Triadimefon, Trifluralin and Vinclozolin. Triphenylphosphine (TPP) was used as internal standards.
Samples were treated using the SweEt method and injected in GC-MS/MS (Thermo SCIENTIFIC TRACE 1300 coupled with TSQ 8000 Evo) equipped with an AS 3000 autosampler. Blank reagents, blank matrices and fortified matrices were analysed in every analytical batch.
Xcalibur software was used for mass spectrometer control and data acquisition. Data analysis was performed with Trace Finder software. The GC column was a DB-5MS (30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm), the working conditions were as follows: drying gas He (purity > 99.9%) at 1.2 mL min−1; EI voltage 70 eV; injector temperature 250 °C; splitless mode; split flow 50 mL min−1; gas saver flow 10 mL min−1 (5 min); injection volume 1 μL. The oven temperature program was started at 50 °C for 1 min, then increased by 20 °C min−1 to 180 °C, increased by 5 °C min−1 to 270 °C and by 30 °C min−1 to 325 °C, then held for 2 min. The mass spectrometer operated in EI ionization in positive mode, and the MS transfer line was 260 °C. Detection was operated in SRM mode, using 2 transitions for each pesticide: 1 quantifier and 1 qualifier. In each analytical session, a post-matrix curve was prepared, using negative soy drinks. Concentrations for the matrix curves were: 0.5, 1, 2, 5 and 10 ppm. For each calibration curve, the value of the angular coefficient (R2 ≥ 0.97), the residues of the individual experimental points at the head and at the tail of the analytical batch (∆ ≤ 20%) and the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ≥ 3) for the quantifier ion and for the qualifier ion of all analytes were verified.
The absence of signals attributable to analytes in the chromatograms of reagents and blank was verified to exclude the hypothesis of any contamination or matrix effects. Analyte recoveries were also verified in the fortified samples (60 ÷ 140%) in order to monitor the correct functioning of the extraction procedure.
The analytical method has been validated by NRL for Pesticides in Cereals and Feed (NRL-CF) in accordance with the SANTE/2019/12682 protocol. Validation information is reported in Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Material.

2.3. Microbiological Assays and Organoleptic Tests

Preparations of samples and dilutions for microbiological tests were made in conformity with standard ISO 7218:2007 [42] and ISO 6887-1:2017 [43].
The study included determination of the total aerobic mesophilic bacteria count (TAMBC) (ISO 4833-1:2013) [44], enumeration of coagulase-positive staphylococci (CPS) including Staphylococcus aureus and other species (ISO 6888-2:2021) [45], detection and enumeration of total coliforms (ISO 4831:2006) [46], detection and enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae (ISO 21528-1:2017) [47], enumeration of sulphite-reducing anaerobic bacteria (SRAB) (ISO 15213:2003) [48], detection, enumeration and confirmation through cereulid-toxin gene PCR-end point of Bacillus cereus (ISO 7932:2004/AMD 1:2020) [49], enumeration of total yeast and mould (TYMC) (ISO 21527:2008) [50] and detection of Listeria monocytogenes (ISO 11290-1:2017) [51] and Salmonella (UNI EN ISO 6579-1:2017) [52].
Results were interpreted in conformity with the general requirements and guidance for microbiological examinations of food and animal feeding stuffs (ISO 7218:2007) [42], and the unit of measurement used is CFU/mL.
After isolation, bacteria were identified using API identification kits (Biomérieux, Florence) and VITEK® MS through MALDI-TOF technology (Biomérieux, Florence).
To examine product sterility, microbiological stability and packaging integrity, samples were stocked in their original packages in a thermostatic chamber at 31 °C for 21 days.
Organoleptic characteristics (appearance, colour, odour, residues) were judged by two operators double blinded to the study.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Pesticides Analysis

Most of the samples analysed did not present detectable pesticide residue, as shown in Table 3. Fipronil sulfone, piperonyl-butoxide and pirimiphos-methyl were the residue compounds quantified in all three matrices, and all of them had very low concentrations, in particular in pasteurized soy and rice matrices, and in all the organic and without sugar beverages, no residues have been found. In all the analysed samples, only 4 soy, 4 rice and 3 oats samples presented detectable residues. Among all soy-based samples, fipronil sulfone was detected in just one fortified sample (0.12 μg/L), piperonyl-butoxide in two UHT samples (2.03 ± 1.02 μg/L; 3.18 ± 1.59 μg/L) and pirimiphos-methyl in one UHT sample (0.068 μg/L). Among all rice samples, just in three UHT samples were detected residues (piperonyl-butoxide: 2.22 ± 1.11, 6.6 ± 3.30, 3.74 ± 1.87 μg/L and pirimiphos-methyl: 1.19 ± 0.60 μg/L). In oat samples, just in two UHT samples were detected pesticide residues (pirimiphos-methyl: 6.65 ± 3.32 μg/L and piperonyl-butoxide: 7.18 ± 3.59, 23.7 ± 11.9 μg/L). All concentrations detected were very low, and samples were complied with the EU regulations. In Table 3 are summarised residue concentrations detected.
Cereal and legume concentration in milk alternatives drinks is quite low, and it can reach percentages between 5.8 and 17%, as can be proved by reading Tables S3–S5 in the Supplementary Materials. However, even residue concentrations corrected considering cereal and legumes percentage, do not exceed European LMR.
Below (Table 4) is reported the concentration values of pesticides in the three matrices investigated, calculated considering the cereal and legume percentage values reported on the packaging labels (the percentages are reported in the Supplementary Materials).
Piperonyl-butoxide is one of the most common chemical synergists [53] that is added to pyrethroids to inhibit enzyme degradation or resistance to the pesticide, thus increasing its efficiency [54]. European regulation does not include piperonyl-butoxide in the framework legislation in the field of plant protection products (EC REG. 396/2005) [55]. In Italy, piperonyl-butoxide is regulated in organic farming by EC REG. 834/2007 [56] and by EC REG. 1107/2009 [57].
In laboratory routine analyses on cereal matrices, piperonyl-butoxide is often present together with pirimiphos-methyl residues, suggesting a ready-to-use co-formulate.
Pirimiphos-methyl is an organophosphate insecticide commonly used in grain storage that inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase of the nervous system, causing the consequent accumulation of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which is toxic for insects and for birds, amphibians and mammals [58]. The maximum residue limit is set at 0.5 mg/kg for soybeans and rice and 5 mg/kg for oats, as reported in EC REG. 396/2005 [55].
Fipronil sulfone is a metabolite of fipronil contained in commercial antiparasitic products for pets and came to public attention last year following its illegal use against the red lice in industrial egg production and laying hen farms [59,60,61,62]. Fipronil sulfone is a reversible inhibitor of the γ-aminobutyric acid receptor (GABA) [63,64] as well.
In this study, it is difficult to go back to the origin of the contamination. Residues seems to be correlated just with UHT drinks, but more trial investigation will help to understand what may be the causes. Pesticide residues were present at very low concentrations, and the presence could depend on the different raw cereals or legumes used for the drink production. Industrial process could significantly affect the residue levels of pesticides contained therein and/or thereon. Due to the physico-chemical properties of the residues, residue concentration may decrease or increase in processed fractions compared to the initial concentration in the raw agricultural commodity. The resulting ratio between processed fraction and raw agricultural ingredient is denoted as processing factor (Pf) [65]. In the present study, no process factor was taken into account. However, future studies about milk alternatives need to consider Pf. Processing studies are fundamental to decide on compliance of residues in processed products with legal standards for the raw agricultural commodity and to refine dietary exposure estimation of humans and livestock with respect to residues in processed products [65].

3.2. Microbiological Analyses

Qualitative analysis about pathogen bacteria provided negative results in all samples of soy drinks.
Two samples showed yeast and mould growth, and all the other samples recorded a load of <1 CFU/mL for each microbiological analysis. The TAMBC registered a load of <1 CFU/mL on 29 samples, 1–4 CFU/mL on one sample, 5–10 CFU/mL on one sample and >100 CFU/mL on one sample.
Qualitative analysis about pathogen bacteria provided negative results in all samples of oat drinks.
The TYMC results showed a load of 4 CFU/mL on three samples, and all the other samples recorded a load of <1 CFU/mL for each microbiological analysis. In one sample, contamination by Bacillus cereus was detected: a single suspect colony was isolated on MYP culture medium, and the presence of the microorganism was confirmed through phenotypic identification procedures (Table 4). The search for the cereulid-toxin gene by PCR-end point showed negative results.
The TAMBC and BPA-RPF (Baird-Parker agar with Rabbit Plasma Fibrinogen supplement) culture media recorded loads of <4 CFU/mL on one sample and two samples, respectively. Two oat drinks had recorded lactose-fermenting colonies.
Qualitative analysis about pathogen bacteria provided negative results in all samples of rice drinks.
Two samples showed a yeast and mould load of <4 CFU/mL, and all the other samples recorded a load of <1 CFU/mL for each microbiological analysis. The TAMBC, TYMC and BPA-RPF (Baird-Parker agar with Rabbit Plasma Fibrinogen supplement) culture media showed loads of <4 CFU/mL for one sample, four samples and one sample, respectively. All quantitative data are resumed in the table below, Table 5.

3.3. Bacterial Identification Results

Each type of plant-based milk alternative showed growth presence in different culture media, but none of the bacteria identified represent a risk for the consumers. Results of the bacterial identification are summarized in Table 6.
Microbiological results [53,54,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65] showed that thermal processes improve microbiological safety. Pasteurization aims to reduce by a 5 log the microbial load, through the application of 62.8–65.6 °C for at least 30 min or 71.7 °C for at least 15 s, without causing major changes to the nutritional and sensory characteristics. The most popular method is ultra-high-temperature (UHT) processing, which consists of applying a higher temperature (138–145 °C) for a shorter time (1–10 s) and produces a sterile product with less organoleptic changes [66]. Despite the application of thermal processes, it has been demonstrated that, under experimental conditions, pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. can find fertile ground for their growth [38,39,40].
Our study did not record any positivity on the presence of food pathogens; however, one pasteurized sample of soy beverage registered a TAMBC >100 CFU/g (6700 CFU/g), showing that thermal processes cannot ensure microbiological safety or a post-treatment contamination can be possible.

4. Conclusions

Plant-based beverages are becoming one of the largest dairy milk alternatives on the global market [1].
Several studies showed that lactose intolerance could impair quality of life of people [27,67,68]: those individual usually reduce the intake of dairy product and also the intake of long-ripened cheese [8], which contain negligible lactose tolerable by lactose intolerant subjects [69]. This diet choice leads to a reduced calcium intake, which is linked to a higher risk of developing osteoporosis unless supplemented by the intake of calcium-fortified beverages [68]. Some hard-matured cheese such as Parmigiano Reggiano PDO and Grana Padano PDO are naturally lactose free, as they contain less than 0.01% (w/w) of lactose [70], which is below the Italian Health Ministry limit of 0.1% (w/w) [71]. Facioni et al. [70] investigated grocery shopping habits of 384 Italian lactose-intolerant subjects through a questionnaire: among those who reported not tolerating lactose-free products (20% of the total number), a large number of respondents consume plant-based beverages, while a smaller proportion consume only naturally lactose-free products such as soft, semi-hard and hard cheeses. However, without a proper diagnosis of lactose intolerance, avoiding cow’s milk and milk products is not recommended, and the consumption of oat milk and rice milk should be avoided by FPIES patients [23,24]. According to Casellas et al. [27], quality of life could be impaired by symptoms and other non-disease-related factors, such as anxiety, depression and fatigue, especially in irritable bowel syndrome patients with lactose intolerance.
Considering the large diffusion of plant-based milk alternatives among both allergic/intolerant and non-allergic consumers, it is necessary to ensure their microbiological safety. In addition, since plant-based milk and cow’s milk differ in micro and macronutrients [72], it is even more important to ensure consumers have a reliable alternative from all viewpoints, such as nutritional, chemical and microbiological ones. Concluding, it is necessary to pay attention to the substitution of cow’s milk by these alternatives considering the nutritional quality. In fact, due to the diversity of nutrient types and the amount of nutrients found in the studies analysed, it is noteworthy that most plant-based beverages cannot completely fulfil as the replacement for cow’s milk regarding nutritional quality. It should also be considered that increased consumption of plant-based beverages should go hand in hand with the development of environmentally friendly crops. Intensive soybean farming, for example, as reported by notable studies [73,74], is a leading cause of deforestation.
In this study, we showed that plant-based drinks can be a safe alternative to dairy milk according to microbiological and chemical results obtained. However, further research is needed to understand the influence of this diet, and plant-based beverages, on the gut microbiome [34,35]. Notwithstanding, proper sanitary practices are necessary, as well as a risk assessment of the production and consumption of these products with the purpose to prevent foodborne disease. Chemical investigation showed low levels of pesticide residues on plant-based milk alternatives overall. No correlation between pre-treatment and residue concentration was found. Fipronil sulfone, piperonyl-butoxide and pirimiphos-methyl residue concentrations were detected at low concentrations and in few samples. Microbiological results confirmed that thermal processes improve microbiological safety and that these products do not pose a risk for the consumer. Based on our own studies, we can conclude that consumption of plant-based beverages does not lead to pesticide exposure or microbiological risk. However, due to their recent popularity, they should be included in official control by competent authority similar to other commonly consumed food categories. Our results help to better understand microbiological and chemical hazards of milk alternative beverages and support the promotion of plant-based beverages as a valid and healthy alternative to dairy milk. Future studies should include a processing factor issue in order to support scientific background indispensable for correct decisions on residue compliance and estimates of humans’ dietary exposures.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu15102258/s1, Table S1: Pesticides transition. Pesticides name, parent ion (m/z), quantitative and qualitative ion (m/z), collision energy CE (V); Table S2: Validated pesticides LOQs; Table S3: Declared soy percentage (%) in soy drink; Table S4: Declared rice percentage (%) in rice drink; Table S5: Declared oat percentage (%) in oat drink.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, L.D., D.M.B., C.E. and R.G.; methodology, L.D., D.M.B., V.C., B.V. and R.G.; software V.S., V.C., N.M. and R.G.; validation, L.D., D.M.B., V.C., B.V. and R.G.; formal analysis, N.M., V.S., V.C. and R.G.; investigation, V.S., V.C., N.M., L.D., D.M.B., B.V. and R.G.; resources, L.D., D.M.B., C.E. and B.V.; data curation, V.C., N.M., L.D., D.M.B., B.V. and R.G.; writing—original draft preparation, N.M., C.F. and R.G.; writing—review and editing, N.M., C.F., R.G., L.D., D.M.B. and B.V.; supervision, L.D., D.M.B., C.E. and B.V.; project administration, L.D., D.M.B., C.E. and B.V.; funding acquisition, L.D., D.M.B., C.E. and B.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Italian Health Minister [grant number 17C05, 2017].

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sethi, S.; Tyagi, S.K.; Anurag, R.K. Plant-Based Milk Alternatives an Emerging Segment of Functional Beverages: A Review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 3408–3423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lopez, S.H.; Dias, J.; Mol, H.; de Kok, A. Selective Multiresidue Determination of Highly Polar Anionic Pesticides in Plant-Based Milk, Wine and Beer Using Hydrophilic Interaction Liquid Chromatography Combined with Tandem Mass Spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2020, 1625, 461226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Haas, R.; Schnepps, A.; Pichler, A.; Meixner, O. Cow Milk versus Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: A Comparison of Product Image and Motivational Structure of Consumption. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Silva, A.R.A.; Silva, M.M.N.; Ribeiro, B.D. Health Issues and Technological Aspects of Plant-Based Alternative Milk. Food Res. Int. 2020, 131, 108972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Szilagyi, A.; Ishayek, N. Lactose Intolerance, Dairy Avoidance, and Treatment Options. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jansson-Knodell, C.L.; Krajicek, E.J.; Savaiano, D.A.; Shin, A.S. Lactose Intolerance: A Concise Review to Skim the Surface. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2020, 95, 1499–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement: Lactose Intolerance and Health. PubMed. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20186234/ (accessed on 5 April 2023).
  8. Misselwitz, B.; Butter, M.; Verbeke, K.; Fox, M.R. Update on Lactose Malabsorption and Intolerance: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Clinical Management. Gut 2019, 68, 2080–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Catanzaro, R.; Sciuto, M.; Singh, B.; Pathak, S.; Marotta, F. Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Lactose Intolerance: The Importance of Differential Diagnosis. A Monocentric Study. Minerva Gastroenterol. 2021, 67, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Scientific Opinion on Lactose Thresholds in Lactose Intolerance and Galactosaemia. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1777. [CrossRef]
  11. Hypolactasia: A Common Enzyme Deficiency Leading to Lactose Malabsorption and Intolerance. PubMed. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23222197/ (accessed on 5 April 2023).
  12. Vanga, S.K.; Raghavan, V. How Well Do Plant Based Alternatives Fare Nutritionally Compared to Cow’s Milk? J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Flom, J.D.; Sicherer, S.H. Epidemiology of Cow’s Milk Allergy. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Simoons, F.J. The Geographic Hypothesis and Lactose Malabsorption. A Weighing of the Evidence. Am. J. Dig. Dis. 1978, 23, 963–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Evershed, R.P.; Davey Smith, G.; Roffet-Salque, M.; Timpson, A.; Diekmann, Y.; Lyon, M.S.; Cramp, L.J.E.; Casanova, E.; Smyth, J.; Whelton, H.L.; et al. Dairying, Diseases and the Evolution of Lactase Persistence in Europe. Nature 2022, 608, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Storhaug, C.L.; Fosse, S.K.; Fadnes, L.T. Country, Regional, and Global Estimates for Lactose Malabsorption in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 2, 738–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sarti, L.; Martini, M.; Brajon, G.; Barni, S.; Salari, F.; Altomonte, I.; Ragona, G.; Mori, F.; Pucci, N.; Muscas, G.; et al. Donkey’s Milk in the Management of Children with Cow’s Milk Protein Allergy: Nutritional and Hygienic Aspects. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2019, 45, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Haenlein, G.F.W. Goat Milk in Human Nutrition. Small Rumin. Res. 2004, 51, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fructuoso, I.; Romão, B.; Han, H.; Raposo, A.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Araya-Castillo, L.; Zandonadi, R.P. An Overview on Nutritional Aspects of Plant-Based Beverages Used as Substitutes for Cow’s Milk. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McClements, D.J. Development of Next-Generation Nutritionally Fortified Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: Structural Design Principles. Foods 2020, 9, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bhatia, J.; Greer, F. Use of Soy Protein-Based Formulas in Infant Feeding. Pediatrics 2008, 121, 1062–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sicherer, S.H. Clinical Implications of Cross-Reactive Food Allergens. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2001, 108, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nowak-Węgrzyn, A.; Katz, Y.; Mehr, S.S.; Koletzko, S. Non-IgE-Mediated Gastrointestinal Food Allergy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2015, 135, 1114–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cianferoni, A. Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome Epidemiology. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021, 126, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Argnani, F.; Di Camillo, M.; Marinaro, V.; Foglietta, T.; Avallone, V.; Cannella, C.; Vernia, P. Hydrogen Breath Test for the Diagnosis of Lactose Intolerance, Is the Routine Sugar Load the Best One? World J. Gastroenterol. 2008, 14, 6204–6207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Robles, L.; Priefer, R. Lactose Intolerance: What Your Breath Can Tell You. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Casellas, F.; Aparici, A.; Pérez, M.J.; Rodríguez, P. Perception of Lactose Intolerance Impairs Health-Related Quality of Life. Eur J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 70, 1068–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fusco, V.; Chieffi, D.; Fanelli, F.; Logrieco, A.F.; Cho, G.S.; Kabisch, J.; Böhnlein, C.; Franz, C.M.A.P. Microbial Quality and Safety of Milk and Milk Products in the 21st Century. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 2013–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jeske, S.; Zannini, E.; Arendt, E.K. Past, Present and Future: The Strength of Plant-Based Dairy Substitutes Based on Gluten-Free Raw Materials. Food Res. Int. 2018, 110, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vernia, P.; Marinaro, V.; Argnani, F.; Di Camillo, M.; Caprilli, R. Self-Reported Milk Intolerance in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: What Should We Believe? Clin. Nutr. 2004, 23, 996–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. McCarthy, K.S.; Parker, M.; Ameerally, A.; Drake, S.L.; Drake, M.A. Drivers of Choice for Fluid Milk versus Plant-Based Alternatives: What Are Consumer Perceptions of Fluid Milk? J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 6125–6138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vainio, A.; Niva, M.; Jallinoja, P.; Latvala, T. From Beef to Beans: Eating Motives and the Replacement of Animal Proteins with Plant Proteins among Finnish Consumers. Appetite 2016, 106, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Schyver, T.; Smith, C. Reported Attitudes and Beliefs toward Soy Food Consumption of Soy Consumers versus Nonconsumers in Natural Foods or Mainstream Grocery Stores. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2005, 37, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sakkas, H.; Bozidis, P.; Touzios, C.; Kolios, D.; Athanasiou, G.; Athanasopoulou, E.; Gerou, I.; Gartzonika, C. Nutritional Status and the Influence of the Vegan Diet on the Gut Microbiota and Human Health. Medicina 2020, 56, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Beam, A.; Clinger, E.; Hao, L. Effect of Diet and Dietary Components on the Composition of the Gut Microbiota. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Y.; Qin, C.; Dong, L.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Z.; Liu, L.; Yang, J.; Liu, L. Whole Grain Benefit: Synergistic Effect of Oat Phenolic Compounds and β-Glucan on Hyperlipidemia via Gut Microbiota in High-Fat-Diet Mice. Food Funct. 2022, 13, 12686–12696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Deswal, A.; Deora, N.S.; Mishra, H.N. Optimization of Enzymatic Production Process of Oat Milk Using Response Surface Methodology. Food Bioproc. Technol. 2014, 7, 610–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bartula, K.; Begley, M.; Latour, N.; Callanan, M. Growth of Food-Borne Pathogens Listeria and Salmonella and Spore-Forming Paenibacillus and Bacillus in Commercial Plant-Based Milk Alternatives. Food Microbiol. 2023, 109, 104143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tipparaju, S.; Ravishankar, S.; Slade, P.J. Survival of Listeria monocytogenes in Vanilla-Flavored Soy and Dairy Products Stored at 88 C. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 378–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, J.G.; Lin, T.S. Survival of Listeria monocytogenes Inoculated in Retail Soymilk Products. Food Control 2008, 19, 862–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Müller, O.; Krawinkel, M. Malnutrition and health in developing countries. CMAJ 2005, 173, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. ISO 7218:2007; Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs—General requirements and guidance for microbiological examinations. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2007.
  43. ISO 6887-1:2017; Microbiology of the food chain—Preparation of test samples, initial suspension and decimal dilutions for microbiological examination—Part 1: General rules for the preparation of the initial suspension and decimal dilutions. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2017.
  44. ISO 4833-1:2013; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Microorganisms—Part 1: Colony Count at 30 °C by the Pour Plate Technique. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2013.
  45. ISO 6888-2:2021; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Coagulase-Positive Staphylococci (Staphylococcus aureus and Other Species)—Part 2: Method Using Rabbit Plasma Fibrinogen Agar Medium. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2021.
  46. ISO 4831:2006; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Horizontal Method for the Detection and Enumeration of Coliforms—Most Probable Number Technique. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2006.
  47. ISO 21528-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection and Enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae—Part 1: Detection of Enterobacteriaceae. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2017.
  48. ISO 15213:2003; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Sulfite-Reducing Bacteria Growing under Anaerobic Conditions. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2003.
  49. ISO 7932:2004/AMD 1:2020; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Presumptive Bacillus cereus—Colony-Count Technique at 30 Degrees C—Amendment 1: Inclusion of Optional Tests. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2020.
  50. ISO 21527:2008; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Yeasts and Moulds—Part 1: Colony Count Technique in Products with Water Activity Greater Than 0.95. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2008.
  51. ISO 11290-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection and Enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes and of Listeria spp.—Part 1: Detection Method. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2017.
  52. UNI EN ISO 6579-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection, Enumeration and Serotyping of Salmonella—Part 1: Detection of Salmonella spp. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2017.
  53. Kongmee, M.; Thanispong, K.; Sathantriphop, S.; Sukkanon, C.; Bangs, M.J.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Enhanced Mortality in Deltamethrin-Resistant Aedes Aegypti in Thailand Using a Piperonyl Butoxide Synergist. Acta Trop. 2019, 189, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Maples, D. Piperonyl Butoxide. In Encyclopedia of Toxicology, 3rd ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 958–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. EC Reg. 396/2005. Regolamento (UE) n.369/2005 del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio, del 23 Febbraio 2005. EUR-Lex-32005R0396-EN-EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32005R0396 (accessed on 7 May 2023).
  56. EC Reg. 834/2007. Regolamento (CE) n. 834/2007 del Consiglio, del 28 Giugno 2007. EUR-Lex-32007R0834-EN-EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32007R0834 (accessed on 7 May 2023).
  57. EC Reg. 1107/2009. Regolamento (CE) n. 1107/2009 del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio, del 21 Ottobre 2009. EUR-Lex-32009R1107-EN-EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/?uri=celex:32009R1107 (accessed on 7 May 2023).
  58. Montemurro, M.; Brasca, R.; Culzoni, M.J.; Goicoechea, H.C. High-Performance Organized Media-Enhanced Spectrofluorimetric Determination of Pirimiphos-Methyl in Maize. Food Chem. 2019, 278, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, X.; Li, H.; Ma, W.; Guo, Z.; Li, X.; Song, S.; Tang, H.; Li, X.; Zhang, Q. Development of Precise GC-EI-MS Method to Determine the Residual Fipronil and Its Metabolites in Chicken Egg. Food Chem. 2019, 281, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Guo, Q.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, J.; Qi, K.; Du, Z.; Shao, B. Determination of Fipronil and Its Metabolites in Chicken Egg, Muscle and Cake by a Modified QuEChERS Method Coupled with LC-MS/MS. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2018, 35, 1543–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Stafford, E.G.; Tell, L.A.; Lin, Z.; Davis, J.L.; Vickroy, T.W.; Riviere, J.E.; Baynes, R.E. Consequences of Fipronil Exposure in Egg-Laying Hens. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2018, 253, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lautz, L.S.; Stoopen, G.; Ginting, A.J.; Hoogenboom, R.L.A.P.; Punt, A. Fipronil and Fipronil Sulfone in Chicken: From in Vitro Experiments to in Vivo PBK Model Predictions. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2022, 165, 113086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gupta, R.C.; Anadón, A. Fipronil. In Veterinary Toxicology: Basic and Clinical Principles, 3rd ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 533–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhao, X.; Yeh, J.Z.; Salgado, V.L.; Narahashi, T. Sulfone Metabolite of Fipronil Blocks γ-Aminobutyric Acid- and Glutamate-Activated Chloride Channels in Mammalian and Insect Neurons. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2005, 314, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Scholz, R.; Herrmann, M.; Michalski, B. Compilation of Processing Factors and Evaluation of Quality Controlled Data of Food Processing Studies. J. Fur Verbrauch. Lebensm. 2017, 12, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Deeth, H.C.; Datta, N. Heat Treatment of Milk | Non-Thermal Technologies: Introduction. In Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, 2nd ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 725–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tomba, C.; Baldassarri, A.; Coletta, M.; Cesana, B.M.; Basilisco, G. Is the Subjective Perception of Lactose Intolerance Influenced by the Psychological Profile? Aliment. Pharm. 2012, 36, 660–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zheng, X.; Chu, H.; Cong, Y.; Deng, Y.; Long, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Pohl, D.; Fried, M.; Dai, N.; Fox, M. Self-Reported Lactose Intolerance in Clinic Patients with Functional Gastrointestinal Symptoms: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impact on Food Choices. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2015, 27, 1138–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Van Calcar, S.C.; Bernstein, L.E.; Rohr, F.J.; Scaman, C.H.; Yannicelli, S.; Berry, G.T. A Re-Evaluation of Life-Long Severe Galactose Restriction for the Nutrition Management of Classic Galactosemia. Mol. Genet. Metab. 2014, 112, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Facioni, M.S.; Raspini, B.; Pivari, F.; Dogliotti, E.; Cena, H. Nutritional Management of Lactose Intolerance: The Importance of Diet and Food Labelling. J. Transl. Med. 2020, 18, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011 del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio, del 25 Ottobre 2011. EUR-Lex-32011R1169-EN-EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj (accessed on 21 April 2021).
  72. Shori, A.B.; Al Zahrani, A.J. Non-Dairy Plant-Based Milk Products as Alternatives to Conventional Dairy Products for Delivering Probiotics. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 42, e101321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J.; Ayre, B.; Godar, J.; Bastos Lima, M.G.; Bauch, S.; Garrett, R.; Green, J.; Lathuillière, M.J.; Löfgren, P.; Macfarquhar, C.; et al. Using Supply Chain Data to Monitor Zero Deforestation Commitments: An Assessment of Progress in the Brazilian Soy Sector. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 035003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Leijten, F.; dos Reis, T.N.P.; Sim, S.; Verburg, P.H.; Meyfroidt, P. The Influence of Company Sourcing Patterns on the Adoption and Effectiveness of Zero-Deforestation Commitments in Brazil’s Soy Supply Chain. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 128, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Nutritional tables of oat, soy, rice and whole cow’s milk for 100 g of samples.
Table 1. Nutritional tables of oat, soy, rice and whole cow’s milk for 100 g of samples.
Component NameOat Beverages a
(100 g)		Soy Beverages b
(100 g)		Rice Milk c
(100 g)		Whole Milk d
(100 g)
ProximatesWater90.6 g92.4 g89.28 g88.1 g
Energy (Atwater general factors)48 kcal38 kcal47 kcal61 kcal
Nitrogen0.13 g0.57 g/0.51 g
Protein0.8 g3.55 g0.028 g3.27 g
Total lipid (fat)2.75 g2.12 g0.97 g3.2 g
Ash0.79 g0.64 g/0.8 g
CarbohydratesCarbohydrates, by difference5.1 g1.29 g9.17 g4.63 g
Fibre<0.75 g<0.45 g0.3 g/
Sugar, total (sucrose, glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose, galactose)2.32 g0.56 g5.28 g4.81 g
OligosaccharidesSum of raffinose, stachyose, verbascose/0.53 g//
MineralsCa148 mg101 mg118 mg123 mg
Fe0.26 mg0.54mg0.2 mg0
Mg5.9 mg21.5 mg11 mg11.9 mg
P89 mg69 mg56 mg101 mg
K148 mg158 mg27 mg150 mg
Na42 mg34 mg39 mg38 mg
Zn0.09 mg0.31 mg0.13 mg0.42 mg
Cu0.027 mg0.108 mg0.037 mg0.001 mg
Mn0.126 mg0.280 mg/0 mg
I/<0.10 µg/37.9 µg
Se2.5 µg1.9 µg2.2 µg1.9 µg
Mo10.1 µg58.4 µg//
VitaminsThiamin0.04 mg0.063 mg0.027 mg0.056 mg
Riboflavin0.281 mg0.084 mg0.142 mg0.138 mg
Niacin0.096 mg0.236 mg0.39 mg0.105 mg
Vitamin B-60.006 mg0.055 mg0.039 mg0.061 mg
Biotin1.41 mg3.34 µg//
Folate, total<6 mg20 µg2 µg/
Choline, total//2.1 mg17.8 mg
Betaine///0.7 mg
Vitamin B-120.51 mg0.39 µg0.63 µg0.54 µg
Vitamin A/58 µg63 µg32 µg
Retinol85 mg58 µg63 µg31 µg
Carotene, total///7 µg
Lutein + zeaxanthin/8 µg/6 µg
Vitamin E (α-tocopherol)/0.16 mg0.47 mg 0.05 mg
γ,δ-tocopherol/2.29 mg//
Vitamin D (D2+D3)1.7 mg0.68 µg1 µg0.96 µg
Amino acidsTryptophan0.009 mg0.046 g/0.043 g
Threonine0.022 g0.128 g/0.154 g
Isoleucine0.025 g0.145 g/0.173 g
Leucine0.081 g0.249 g/0.333 g
Lysine0.061 g0.221 g/0.298 g
Methionine0.01 g0.046 g/0.09 g
Phenylalanine0.072 g0.175 g/0.161 g
Tyrosine0.041 g0.124 g/0.062 g
Valine0.032 g0.142 g/0.207 g
Arginine0.082 g0.269 g/0.127 g
Histidine0.018 g0.098 g/0.097 g
Alanine0.038 g0.139 g/0.11 g
Aspartic acid0.082 g0.396 g/0.27 g
Glutamic acid0.15 g0.619 g/0.788 g
Glycine0.056 g0.141 g/0.069 g
Proline0.072 g13.7 g/0.333 g
Serine0.056 g0.168 g/0.188 g
Hydroxyproline0.01 g<0.01 g/0 g
Cysteine0.025 g0.058 g/0.038 g
IsoflavonoidsSum of daidzein, genistein, daidzin, genistin, glycitin/33.91 mg//
a: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/2257046/nutrients; b: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/1999630/nutrients; c: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/1097552/nutrients; d: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/746782/nutrients (accessed on 7 May 2023).
Table
Table 2. Distribution of samples.
Table 2. Distribution of samples.
Plant-Based BeveragesNo. of Analysed SamplesUHTPasteurizedOrganicFortified *Flavoured **Without Sugar Added
Soy3322114313
Rice1714312004
Oat101006005
*: vitamins added; **: chocolate flavour added.
Table
Table 3. Concentration and standard deviation of fipronil sulfone, piperonyl-butoxide and pirimiphos-methyl residues detected in plant-based drinks.
Table 3. Concentration and standard deviation of fipronil sulfone, piperonyl-butoxide and pirimiphos-methyl residues detected in plant-based drinks.
Plant-Based DrinksTreatmentsFipronil Sulfone (μg/L ± sd) Piperonyl-Butoxide (μg/L ± sd) Pirimiphos-Methyl (μg/L ± sd)
SoyUHT/2.03 ± 1.02
3.18 ± 1.59		0.068 *
Pasteurized///
Organic///
Fortified0.12 *//
Flavoured///
Without sugar///
RiceUHT/6.6 ± 3.30
2.22 ± 1.11
3.74 ± 1.87		1.19 ± 0.60
Pasteurized///
Organic///
Without sugar///
OatUHT/7.18 ± 3.59
23.7 ± 11.9		6.65 ± 3.32
Organic///
Without sugar///
The concentrations marked with an asterisk are estimates; for these analyses, the identification criteria were verified but the value was outside the concentration range for the method that had been tested. However, NRL-CF considered the estimated value useful to express the order of magnitude of the pesticide contamination. Since this is an estimate, it is not possible to express the relative standard deviation.
Table
Table 4. Concentration and standard deviation of fipronil sulfone, piperonyl-butoxide and pirimiphos-methyl residues detected in plant-based drinks calculated considering cereal and legume percentage.
Table 4. Concentration and standard deviation of fipronil sulfone, piperonyl-butoxide and pirimiphos-methyl residues detected in plant-based drinks calculated considering cereal and legume percentage.
Plant-Based DrinksTreatmentsFipronil Sulfone
(μg/L ± sd)		Piperonyl-Butoxide
(μg/L ± sd)		Pirimiphos-Methyl (μg/L ± sd)
SoyUHT/32.22±16.19 46.76±23.380.97 *
Pasteurized///
Organic///
Fortified1.88 *//
Flavoured///
Without sugar///
RiceUHT/13.06 ± 6.53
38.82 ± 19.41
22 ± 11		7 ± 3.53
Pasteurized///
Organic///
Without sugar///
OatUHT/89.75 ± 44.88
237 ± 119		66.5 ± 32.2
Organic///
Without sugar/ /
The concentrations marked with an asterisk are estimates; for these analyses, the identification criteria were verified but the value was outside the concentration range for the method that had been tested. However, NRL-CF considered the estimated value useful to express the order of magnitude of the pesticide contamination. Since this is an estimate, it is not possible to express the relative standard deviation.
Table
Table 5. Microbiological results: TAMBC (total aerobic mesophilic bacteria count); CPS (coagulase-positive staphylococci); SRAB (sulphite-reducing anaerobic bacteria); TYMC (total yeast and mould).
Table 5. Microbiological results: TAMBC (total aerobic mesophilic bacteria count); CPS (coagulase-positive staphylococci); SRAB (sulphite-reducing anaerobic bacteria); TYMC (total yeast and mould).
MatricesQuantitative Analysis
TAMBCCPSTotal ColiformsEnterobacteriaceaeSRABB. cereusTYMC
(UFC/mL)
Soy<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<119
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<4
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
5<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
15<1<1<1<1<1<1
6700<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<4<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
Oats<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<14
<1<4<1<1<1<4<4
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<14
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<4<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<4<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
Rice<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<4
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<4
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<4
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<4
<4<1<1<1<1<1<1
<1<4<1<1<1<1<1
<1<1<1<1<1<1<1
Table
Table 6. Bacterial identification in different types of plant-based drinks.
Table 6. Bacterial identification in different types of plant-based drinks.
Plant-Based DrinksIdentification ResultIdentification Method
SoyLeifsonia aquaticaAPI CORYNE V4.0
Bacillus firmusAPI 50 CHB V4.1
Bacillus simplexVITEK® MS
Bacillus simplexVITEK® MS
Bacillus firmusAPI 50 CHB V4.1
Staphylococcus warneriVITEK® MS
Staphylococcus warneriVITEK® MS
OatStaphylococcus warneriVITEK® MS
Staphylococcus warneriVITEK® MS
RiceMicobacterium oxydansVITEK® MS
Finegoldia magnaVITEK® MS
Micrococcus luteusVITEK® MS
Staphylococcus epidermidisVITEK® MS
Bacillus subtilisVITEK® MS
Bacillus spp. (B. amyloliquefaciens/B. vallismortis)VITEK® MS
Staphylococcus warneriVITEK® MS
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Giugliano, R.; Musolino, N.; Ciccotelli, V.; Ferraris, C.; Savio, V.; Vivaldi, B.; Ercolini, C.; Bianchi, D.M.; Decastelli, L. Soy, Rice and Oat Drinks: Investigating Chemical and Biological Safety in Plant-Based Milk Alternatives. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2258. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15102258

AMA Style

Giugliano R, Musolino N, Ciccotelli V, Ferraris C, Savio V, Vivaldi B, Ercolini C, Bianchi DM, Decastelli L. Soy, Rice and Oat Drinks: Investigating Chemical and Biological Safety in Plant-Based Milk Alternatives. Nutrients. 2023; 15(10):2258. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15102258

Chicago/Turabian Style

Giugliano, Roberta, Noemi Musolino, Valentina Ciccotelli, Carla Ferraris, Valentina Savio, Barbara Vivaldi, Carlo Ercolini, Daniela Manila Bianchi, and Lucia Decastelli. 2023. "Soy, Rice and Oat Drinks: Investigating Chemical and Biological Safety in Plant-Based Milk Alternatives" Nutrients 15, no. 10: 2258. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15102258

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop