2 min

Why are more people choosing plant-based dairy alternatives?

  • Publications

For many consumers, plant‑based foods, such as drinks and yogurt alternatives , are not only about sustainability, ethics or avoiding specific ingredients. They are also about how a food makes them feel. Across countries and dietary lifestyles, people consistently describe plant‑based options as «easy to digest», «gentle» and «light on the stomach» f— and that sense of digestive comfort is becoming an important reason why they are part of everyday food choices.

That matters because it broadens the conversation around plant‑based consumption. Digestive comfort is not only relevant for people with lactose intolerance or dairy allergies. It also resonates with people following plant-forward diets  and other consumers who are simply looking for foods that fit comfortably into their daily routines and personal sense of wellbeing. For Danone Research & Innovation, that makes it a key insight: it helps show which product qualities people notice, value and may increasingly expect from plant‑based foods.

Key take-aways

  • According to consumers, digestive comfort emerges as a reason for choosing plant‑based foods across countries and dietary lifestyles.
  • Consumers most often describe this benefit in experiential terms such as “easy to digest”, “light on the stomach” and “gentle on the stomach”.
  • Recent consumer findings point to a valuable signal for product development, communication and future clinical research — while remaining clearly about perception rather than proof of physiological effect.

Digestive comfort: an insight that travels across lifestyles

One of the most interesting aspects of the findings is the breadth of this motivation. Digestive comfort is not confined to a narrow consumer segment. It appears across dietary patterns, from people who mostly eat plant‑based to those who mix plant‑based and dairy products in a more flexible way. That makes it less of a specialist concern and more of a mainstream expectation around how food should feel in everyday life.

This is important for understanding the current plant‑based category. While public discussion often focuses on sustainability or ideology, consumers are starting to make choices through a more personal lens: how foods fit their bodies, routines and sense of wellbeing. In that context, digestive comfort becomes a highly relevant part of the value proposition.

What consumers mean when they talk about comfort

Consumers do not usually describe digestive comfort in technical or clinical language. Instead, they speak in experience‑based terms: feeling “easy to digest”, “light on the stomach”, “gentle on the stomach” or “non‑bloating”. These expressions matter because they reveal how people interpret product benefits in real life — not as abstract nutritional concepts, but as sensations that shape repeat choice and day‑to‑day satisfaction.

Why this matters for science and innovation

Digestive comfort is often associated with people who actively avoid lactose or cannot tolerate certain dairy products. But the emerging picture is broader than that. Many consumers appear to choose plant‑based dairy alternatives not only to manage constraints, but also to support a positive everyday eating experience. This suggests that comfort, lightness and digestibility should be understood as desirable food qualities in their own right.

That wider relevance matters for innovation. It points to opportunities to create products that better match what people are looking for in everyday life: foods that are tasty, feel enjoyable, easy to include in daily routines and comfortable to consume. It also helps teams communicate those expectations in a way that stays clear, accurate and responsible. 

Perception first, proof still to build

At the same time, this is where scientific precision matters most. The current findings capture consumer perceptions of digestive comfort. They do not demonstrate clinical digestive outcomes. That distinction is essential, especially in a field where experiences may be influenced by multiple factors, including the absence of lactose, differences in nutrient composition, or broader expectations associated with plant‑based products.

Seen through that lens, the research offers both confidence and caution: confidence that digestive comfort is a meaningful consumer signal, and caution that further clinical work is needed to understand the mechanisms behind it and to determine when perceptions align with measurable physiological effects.

For product developers, the findings point to useful next questions for R&I: which product qualities shape that experience most strongly, and how can future research help turn consumer feedback into even better plant‑based choices?

About the recent study with consumers

The insights in this article are based on a large multi‑country research programme conducted with Ipsos, which analysed responses from 42,000 adults across 14 countries and included an additional in‑depth evaluation of 2,501 plant‑based drink consumers in the USA, UK and Germany. The findings show that health‑related motivations are frequently cited for choosing plant‑based dairy alternatives, and that digestive comfort is an important part of that story. As with all survey research, the results reflect consumer perceptions rather than clinical proof of digestive outcomes.

FAQs

1. Are plant‑based dairy alternatives easier to digest for everyone?

Not necessarily. Many consumers perceive them that way, but individual experiences differ and the current research and publication refer to perceptions, not clinical proof.

2. Is digestive comfort only relevant for people who avoid lactose?

No. The insight appears to resonate more broadly, including among consumers who choose plant‑based options as part of a flexible, everyday diet.

Reference

  • Bou-Mitri, C., Messina, V., Wiśniewska, K., & Duret, L. (2027). Digestive health as a driver of plant-based dairy alternative consumption: Evidence from large-scale multi countries surveys. Food Quality and Preference, 148, 106158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2026.106158