Previous Article in Journal
Mediterranean Diet as a Nutraceutical and Sustainable Model for Health and Environmental Wellbeing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Gastronomy
Volume 3
Issue 4
10.3390/gastronomy3040018
gastronomy-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Do French Adults Consume Their Dairy Foods? A Characterisation Study Using the INCA3 Database

by
Caterina Franzon
1,2,*,
Anestis Dougkas
2,
Juliet Memery
3 and
Katherine M. Appleton
1
1
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK
2
Institut Lyfe Research and Innovation Center, 69130 Ecully, France
3
Department of Marketing, Strategy & Innovation, Bournemouth University Business School, Bournemouth University, Poole B12 5BB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Gastronomy 2025, 3(4), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/gastronomy3040018
Submission received: 31 August 2025 / Revised: 28 September 2025 / Accepted: 28 October 2025 / Published: 31 October 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Dairy foods are rich in nutrients and typically have a lower environmental impact than other animal-based products. Despite these benefits, in France dairy consumption is lower than recommended. This study sought to understand where in the diet dairy foods are consumed, with a view to identifying opportunities for increasing consumption. A characterisation study was conducted using the INCA3 database (n = 783, 324 males, aged 18–44 years). All eating episodes containing dairy products were classified by product type and five dimensions to characterise consumption: (1) amount consumed; (2) eaten or drunk; (3) sweet or savoury; (4) in combination with other foods or by itself; (5) time of day. A sixth dimension, meal or snack, was also based on time of day. The results showed that (1) an average of 246 g, 1126 kJ of dairy is consumed per person, per day; (2) more dairy sub-groups are eaten than drunk; (3) dairy is consumed in sweet and savoury dishes; (4) in combination with other foods, rarely by itself; (5, 6) and at traditional mealtimes, rarely as a snack. Suggestions can be made for increasing dairy consumption based on product type, eating occasion, and context, e.g., increasing availability in out-of-home settings, and considering new or unusual food combinations for new recipes.

1. Introduction

Dairy is a good source of vitamins, calcium and other minerals, proteins, and healthy fats [1,2,3,4]. A regular intake has been associated with lower risk of metabolic and cardiovascular diseases [5,6] and better gut health [7,8]. Its consumption promotes bone density [9], maximising bone mineral content and peak bone mass in late adolescence [9,10] and reducing the risk of developing osteoporosis in later life [11]. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, many dairy products, such as hard cheeses and fermented dairy products, are low in lactose or lactose-free, making them suitable for consumption by those who are lactose intolerant or have digestive sensitivities [12,13,14].
Dairy, furthermore, fits the need to migrate to a more sustainable lifestyle, as it has, on average, a lower impact on natural resources compared to other animal-based products, especially meats [15,16,17,18]. Products from non-cattle milk, e.g., goat’s dairy, are also more environmentally friendly than cow’s dairy, as they are less demanding in the usage of natural resources [19,20].
The dairy group includes many different products from different milks and production processes [21,22] and can be considered an extremely versatile food group, suitable for countless recipes and for consumption in a range of contexts [21,23,24,25,26,27]. Moreover, as occasions for dairy and consumption contexts are not only determined by the product per se, but are also influenced by other factors, such as individual preferences, social norms, or market-related aspects [25,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35], dairy products may have a different place in the meal and the diet for different diners, communities, or cultures [29,32,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Similarities and common aspects also allow some dairy products to be replaced with each other, in dishes or on occasions [29,31,42,43,44]. For instance, yoghurt can be used to replace fattier products, or in different meals and daily occasions [29,45,46]. Thus, while some products may differ in raw ingredients, production processes, and sensory characteristics, they can be consumed in the same manner or on similar occasions and still impact diet, cost, and environment differently [18,46,47,48].
However, despite the health and environmental benefits related to dairy consumption and the wide variety of products available, dairy intake in Western countries is lower than recommended [5,49,50]. Several Western countries recommend a daily consumption of two to three portions of dairy products a day [5,51]; however, in the last two decades, the consumption of milk and dairy products has decreased [49]. For instance, in Europe, milk consumption went from 206.89 kg/y per capita in 2000 to 196.49 kg/y per capita in 2020, while in North America it went from 199.49 kg/y per capita in 2000 to 173.94 kg/y per capita in 2020, without considering potential household waste [49]. In France, milk consumption went from 263 kg/y per capita in 2000 to 250 kg/y per capita in 2020 [49]. While public health campaigns often focus on dairy intakes among children and adolescents [52], intakes often also decrease and stall in late adolescence and adulthood [50]. Adults should also be encouraged to consume dairy, as its intake in adulthood has been associated with healthier body weights, lower risks of developing metabolic syndrome, and a good daily protein and vitamin intake [11,53,54,55].
To enable the development of tailored strategies, it is necessary to know how adults consume dairy products. This study was conducted to explore intakes and potential patterns in dairy consumption among French adults aged 18–44 years old. Several types of dairy product were considered. Previous studies have often focused on characterising the consumption of a single type of product, e.g., milk or a specific product, e.g., cow’s milk [56,57]. However, exploring the consumption of different products in the dairy group could aid in identifying not only current patterns, but also the potential for substitution of high-sugar/high-fat dairy foods, e.g., dairy-based desserts, with healthier products consumed in the same recipes or food combinations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

Dairy consumption was explored using the data collected in 2014–2015 during the third French Individual and National Food Consumption Survey (études Individuelles Nationales des Consommations Alimentaires) (INCA). The INCA takes place every seven years, and the INCA3 was, at the time of this study, the most recent dataset [58]. This dataset is considered representative of the French population living in France, i.e., excluding French overseas departments and territories and Corsica, in terms of diet, physical activity, and other health-related aspects [58,59,60], and it was used as a reference by the Ministry of Health and Social Services (Ministère du travail, de la santé, des solidarités et de famille) for the development of the fourth French National Nutrition and Health Program PNNS (Programme National Nutrition Santé), in force from 2019 to 2024 [61].
A sample of 5855 participants completed the INCA3, of which 3157 (54%) were adults. Among them, n = 783 (males n = 324, 41.3%) were aged 18–44 years and so considered for this study. No further data on age, allowing finer discrimination, were available. Most of them (52.4%) had a higher education. The sample had an average (SD) BMI of 24.7 (4.77) kg/m2, and the average daily energy intake of 2190 kcal (9167 kJ). All data from the INCA3 database is publicly available online as .csv files and can be downloaded for free at https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/donnees-de-consommations-et-habitudes-alimentaires-de-letude-inca-3/#/resources (accessed on 1 July 2022), the French website for data collected by public agencies. Each .csv file gives information about different aspects of dietary intake, e.g., demographic characteristics, and food journals, and a thesaurus is available on the website.
Only the data necessary for this study were downloaded. Dairy consumption was explored through the file named “conso-compo-alim-vf-mad-datagouv2021”, reporting three non-consecutive 24 h food journals per participant, and the file named “description-indiv”, reporting demographic details. Participants were already grouped based on their age, i.e., for adults, 18–44 years old, and no other information was disclosed about their age.
Dietary data were collected along with many additional data, including the time of day that the consumption took place, the location, and the event. The degree of detail depended on the individual. Only diary entries that included dairy consumption were used for this study. No detail about the overall diet was considered, and foods other than dairy were considered only in relation to dairy consumption. Data were also not trimmed for implausible dietary intakes or under- or over-reporting.

2.2. Data Analysis

Once downloaded, the data were organised and analysed in Microsoft Excel.
Each dairy entry was classified manually. Sub-groups, i.e., milk, yoghurt, fermented dairy, soft cheese, hard cheese, desserts, cream, sauces, plant-based dairy alternatives (PBDA), or other, were created considering the health and environmental impacts of each product, e.g., their production process [23], their greenhouse gas emissions [kg CO2 kg−1] [18,48], and their presence in the dataset, to ensure all dairy products were classified. Each food journal was checked, and then a search per product was run to ensure all entries were associated with one of the ten sub-groups. Yoghurt and other fresh fermented products, i.e., crème fraiche, fromage blanc, Petit Suisse, quark, cottage cheese, and cultured milks, were classified into two different sub-groups, as they are often associated with different types of consumption due to their different sensory characteristics [62]. Flavoured products were included in the reference product sub-group, e.g., flavoured milks in the milk sub-group and flavoured yoghurts in the yoghurt sub-group. The ’cream’ sub-group included whipped creams, double creams, and heavy creams; the ‘sauce’ sub-group included all dairy entries named as such by individuals. The ‘other’ sub-group was created to classify dairy products when specified in recipes, e.g., cheese as pizza topping, without detailed information about quantities. This sub-group was considered only while exploring potential eating patterns, not intakes. Butter was not considered as it has a different nutritional composition and use in the kitchen compared to other milk-based products [63,64]. Plant-based dairy alternatives (PBDA) were also considered. All relevant products were classified into a single PBDA sub-group; no specific sub-group was made for each type of PBDA, e.g., PBDA milk and PBDA cheese. These products were not common in the INCA3 dataset; however they were considered, as interest in these products is growing, and this interest may have an influence on decreasing dairy intakes [65,66].
Six dimensions were explored for each dairy entry. Intakes were explored in terms of quantity consumed. Dairy consumption was characterised considering eating paradigms such as patterning, e.g., frequency, and format, e.g., food combination [67], and in terms of number of entries in the dataset. These dimensions explored different aspects of consumption and thus did not overlap.
(i)
First dimension: intakes.
Intakes were explored in terms of weight consumed (grams) and energy intake (kcal, kJ). Average daily intakes were computed for each sub-group, for ‘all dairy’, i.e., all sub-groups except PBDA, and ‘all soft dairy’, i.e., milk, yoghurt, fermented dairy, and soft cheese.
(ii)
Second dimension: “eaten” vs. “drunk”.
All fluid products, whose texture is liquid, that can be consumed alone or with other liquid products, e.g., coffee, were classified as “drunk”. Products whose texture does not allow them to be consumed as a beverage, but instead are “spoonable”, or whose consistency is solid, were classified as “eaten”.
(iii)
Third dimension: “savoury” vs. “sweet”.
All entries were checked one by one and classified according to the foods with which they were consumed. They were classified as “savoury” if consumed with other savoury foods, e.g., pasta; they were classified as “sweet” if the other foods were sugary, e.g., jam. A third label was added to classify dairy entries when not paired with any food or paired with food neither ‘savoury’ nor ‘sweet’, i.e., coffee, cocoa, tea. In these cases, entries were classified as “neither”. A fourth label, “mix”, was added to classify dairy entries when paired with ‘savoury’ and ‘sweet’, e.g., cheese with bread and jam.
(iv)
Fourth dimension: “combined with other foods” vs. “by itself”.
Each dairy entry was classified based on the foods with which it was paired. When the dairy was consumed by itself in a standalone meal, it was classified as “by itself”; when the dairy was consumed in a meal and the accompanying foods were specified, it was classified according to those foods, e.g., “with fruit”. When dairy was consumed as part of a meal, but no details on the accompanying foods were stated, it was classified as “in a meal”.
(v)
Fifth dimension: time of day of the consumption (in hours, from 0 to 23).
Time of day was explored for all dairy, all soft dairy, and each soft dairy sub-group individually, hard cheese, and desserts.
(vi)
Sixth dimension: “meal” vs. “snack”.
This dimension was derived from dimension (v) time of day, where meals and snacks were defined based on the time of consumption, considering traditional mealtimes in France. Notably, the daily meal structure is shared by most of the population and includes three main meals (i.e., breakfast, lunch, and dinner) at the same hours of the day [37]. A snack was defined for consumption at any other time [67,68,69].
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Bournemouth University, UK, in September 2022 (ID: 45760). The INCA3 study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and the study protocol obtained authorization from the CNIL (National Commission on Informatics and Liberty) on 2 May 2013 (Decision DR 2013-228), after approval by the CCTIRS (Advisory Committee on Information Processing in Health Research) on 30 January 2013 (notice 13.055). Verbal informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Verbal consent was witnessed and formally recorded. All INCA3 data are publicly available on https://www.data.gouv.fr/datasets (accessed on 26 September 2022).

3. Results

3.1. First Dimension: Intakes

Table 1 shows the average daily intake in terms of weight consumed (grams) and energy content (kcal and kJ). Figure 1 shows the weight consumed (a) and energy content consumed (b) per dairy sub-group. These graphs highlight the differences in energy content of differing dairy sub-groups and make it evident that highly consumed dairy products based on weight do not necessarily also impact the diet in terms of energy; e.g., the average daily consumption of soft cheese was 19 g vs. yoghurt 63 g; however, their impact in terms of energy intake is the same (227 kJ). A total average consumption was computed for all dairy and all soft dairy, i.e., milk, yoghurt, fermented dairy, and soft cheese, both excluding PBDA. It is interesting to note that soft dairy covers 87% of total dairy consumption. The sub-group ‘other’ was not considered due to the lack of detail.

3.2. Eating Patterns

3.2.1. Second Dimension: “Eaten” vs. “Drunk”

Figure 2 shows that dairy products are more likely to be eaten than drunk, except for milk and PBDA. The eaten ratio in the milk sub-group refers to milk eaten with cereals, or milk in recipes, e.g., crepes.

3.2.2. Third Dimension: “Savoury” vs. “Sweet”

As shown in Figure 3, dairy is more likely to be consumed in sweet or savoury dishes according to its sub-group. For instance, while some products are consumed either in savoury or sweet dishes, e.g., cheeses vs. desserts, respectively, others are suitable for both, e.g., fermented dairy products. Milk and yoghurt were also found to be consumed in neither sweet nor savoury dishes, e.g., Greek yoghurt by itself without other foods. The most diverse sub-group is the PBDA. However, it is important to remember that this group includes different types of dairy alternatives, e.g., milks and cheeses, which are usually consumed in different ways.

3.2.3. Fourth Dimension: “In Combination with Other Foods” vs. “By Itself”

Figure 4 shows that dairy products are rarely consumed by themselves, and often in combination with other foods. The degree of variety in food combinations depends on the dairy type, where food combinations vary according to the sub-group. Some sub-groups were found more suitable for different food combinations, while others, even when consumed in a meal, were more often consumed by themselves.

3.2.4. Fifth Dimension: Time of Day

Figure 5 and Figure 6 show dairy consumption throughout the day. Figure 5 shows the consumption for all dairy sub-groups, including soft dairy, and separately for all soft dairy, while Figure 6 focuses on each dairy sub-group by itself, without consideration of the ‘cream’, ‘sauce’, or ‘other’ sub-groups, due to low consumption. Figure 5 highlights that soft dairy covers the majority of dairy consumed, and both figures show that dairy is more likely to be consumed during traditional mealtimes and is not well distributed across the day.

3.2.5. Sixth Dimension: “Meals” vs. “Snacks”

A final dimension, derived from dimension 5 (v) ‘time of day’, shows that dairy consumption tends to happen during meals, in the morning, at lunch time, i.e., 12 a.m. to 1 p.m., and at dinner time, i.e., 7–9 p.m., even though some intakes are recorded in the afternoon and after dinner too. Higher consumption of milk was recorded in the morning; however, milk entries can be seen all day long, except for at lunch and dinner. Cheeses, yoghurts, and desserts are most likely to be consumed around mealtimes, at lunch or dinner.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to explore dairy consumption in a representative dataset of French adults aged between 18 and 44 years old. Dairy consumption was explored in terms of intakes and eating patterns.
The results show that the average total consumption was 246 g/d. However, this includes desserts and other products where the advice is to consume these rarely [70]. French dietary guidelines suggest a daily intake of two servings of dairy, where servings are considered to be 150 mL milk, 125 g yoghurt, or 30 g cheese, or a total of 310 mL as milk equivalents [50]. In this sample, soft dairy was also consumed more than other products, and this is promising as French food guidelines suggest consuming milk, yoghurt, and other fermented dairy daily, and other products less frequently [70,71], and soft dairy consumption has environmental benefits when compared with hard cheese consumption [18,49]. However, milk and yoghurt intakes are lower than those recommended, i.e., 118 g/d for milk, instead of 150 g/d, and 78 g/d for yoghurt and other fermented dairy instead of 125 g/d. The only recommendation that can be considered as achieved is that related to cheese, i.e., 31 g/d vs. a recommended 30 g/d.
Milk was, as expected, found to be the most consumed product in terms of weight, as the most well-known among all dairy foods [24]. Milk is indeed a good source of protein [3], while also being a low-energy-density product if compared to other foods, including other dairy foods, such as cheeses [72]. Yoghurt was found to be the second most consumed product in terms of weight consumed, and this confirms expectations, as these dairy foods are popular in France, due to the wide availability of different types of yoghurt in the French market [50,57,73]. Yoghurt consumption has been associated with several nutritional benefits, e.g., rich in vitamin B6, and health benefits, e.g., for gut health, while also being suitable for people with lactose sensitivity, and it has a low energy content compared with other dairy products [7,8,46,55,74]. Other fermented dairy products were the least consumed among the soft dairy products, by weight, and this may be due to the products included in the sub-group. Products such as fromage blanc, Petit Suisse, crème fraiche, are known in France, but are still less popular than yoghurt [75], while others, such as cultured milks, e.g., lait ribot, are still associated with regional traditions [76]; thus they are less common in the national French diet [7,62,76]. Moreover, the consumption of these foods can be perceived as “disgusting”, as people associate cultured milks with expired milks, and for this reason, intakes could be affected [29,33]. Although the quantity consumed remains limited, cheeses were found to have the most impact on the diet in terms of energy. These findings demonstrate the energy density of cheeses, particularly hard cheeses, due to the lower water content.
Five dimensions further aimed at identifying eating patterns. First, dairy was more eaten than drunk, except for animal-based and plant-based milks. Even though it can be used in recipes, milk is, in fact, usually considered a beverage [77,78,79,80], and it is frequently paired with coffee, cocoa, or tea [78,79]. Other dairy food sub-groups were more eaten than drunk, as their sensory characteristics, particularly tribology and texture, make them less suitable for consumption as beverages [81,82].
Secondly, the majority of dairy products are consumed either in sweet or in savoury dishes, but rarely in both. Only fermented dairy products and PBDA were found to be consumed in both manners. Fermented dairy products appeared as an interesting dairy sub-group, as the results suggest that they are suitable for many different recipes, unlike yoghurt, which is produced through a very similar process [21,22]. Compared to yoghurt, fermented dairy products have a less defined role within the meal, and this makes them more versatile, while yoghurt in France is often consumed as a healthy replacement for desserts [29,45].
Thirdly, in the majority of dairy entries, dairy products were consumed with other foods, rather than alone, and the food combinations differed depending on the dairy sub-group. For instance, cheeses were more likely to be consumed with pasta or bread, while milk is often consumed with tea, coffee, or cocoa. Some dairy products, such as yoghurt and desserts, were also consumed in a meal but without direct combination with other foods. Dairy products have different sensory characteristics that lead to differences in manner of consumption [81,82,83,84], and thus differences in intakes. In French customs, yoghurt could indeed be consumed at the end of the meal as a dairy-based dessert, either by itself or paired with sugar, honey, or jam [45,77,85]; likewise, cheese, when paired with bread [29].
Finally, in relation to time of day, our results suggest that French adults do not consume dairy foods outside traditional mealtimes. For instance, milk is the most consumed dairy product at breakfast time and throughout the morning, and this is common across different life stages and in many countries around the world [86,87,88,89,90,91]. By comparison, yoghurt, cheeses, and desserts are more common at lunch or dinner, and this is understandable as differences in sensory characteristics may not only impact individual preferences but may also make a specific product more or less suitable for some recipes, thus impacting the manner and time of consumption [25,82,92,93,94].
These results can indeed aid in the development of strategies to boost the consumption of dairy among the target population. Suggestions to increase consumption could focus on maximizing familiar consumption scenarios, per product type, or taking advantage of existing patterns of low consumption to fill current gaps.
For instance, while the majority of dairy sub-groups are eaten and not drunk, some products, such as yoghurt-to-drink and some fresh fermented dairy products, have a texture that makes them suitable for drinking and drinkable recipes. A recent study suggests that a valuable strategy to boost fluid milk intake among adults is to add it to smoothies, an already popular drink [95]. More liquid fermented dairy products could also be incorporated similarly.
Food combinations revealed that dairy products are already consumed in a wide range of different dishes, recipes, and direct combinations with other foods. However, the savoury vs. sweet dimension suggests that the majority of sub-groups tend to be consumed in savoury or sweet dishes, and not both. New recipes or new versions of traditional recipes may be provided and/or taught to adults to boost their consumption of dairy. Yoghurt can be used to prepare a refreshing side sauce for spicy recipes [96], replacing crème fraiche, which is notably higher in fat content [97,98], or may be used in sweet dishes, in non-traditional food combinations [97], e.g., yoghurt with fruit, nuts, and chocolate or caramel for a lower-fat dessert. Soft cheese, similarly, while usually consumed in savoury dishes, can be paired with fruit, nuts, and sweet biscuits for a sweet dish.
France has a strong food culture, including a long-lasting dairy tradition [38,99,100], with dairy foods from different production processes and with different sensory characteristics [23,25,82,92]. This may indeed have an impact on food combinations and dietary choices, in creating individual and cultural unspoken rules [101]. Apps and digital tools may be developed or implemented to enable personalised recipe substitution, permitting consumers to swap between products with similar sensory characteristics or to take into account personal preferences or needs [102].
In the late 1990s–early 2000s, a change in the structure of the meal was recorded in France, following a change in social structure, especially related to work–life balance [37]. Although the French now have more opportunities to eat outside their main meals [37], the results of the present study suggest that French adults do not consume dairy foods outside traditional mealtimes. However, the French dietary guidelines already suggest consuming dairy, specifically soft dairy products, as mid-afternoon snacks [70], in combination with fruits and bread [70]. Strategies increasing the accessibility and availability of healthy foods in different out-of-home locations, such as canteens, restaurants, and food trucks, have already been tested to promote healthier food choices, including dairy consumption, with promising results [103,104,105]. Higher availability of these products in vending machines could also boost their consumption, assuming safety concerns are addressed, if these products are coupled with good product positioning, readable labelling, and accessible prices [106,107,108,109,110,111]. Other strategies could be helpful, such as implementing menus, considering rewards, incentives [105], or better promotion of these products, through an infographic with key messages, e.g., recommended frequency of consumption, via different communication channels [112,113]. Developing tailored strategies promoting consumption of dairy at unusual times or out of home may indeed boost consumption of these products while also increasing the chances of adhering to food guidelines.
Future research is needed considering a more recent public dataset, while also considering different segments of the population, e.g., adolescents or individuals aged more than 44 years old. Dairy consumption is changing over time [49,114,115], and patterns of consumption may also be changing. Patterns of consumption will also vary with population characteristics, such as age and gender [115,116,117]. This study focused on young adults as consumption of dairy is required in young adulthood to reach peak bone mass. In later stages of adulthood, however, dairy consumption will also help reduce the risk of developing osteoporosis and sarcopenia [9,10,117]. Further segmentation, e.g., by gender or socio-economic status, may also aid with understanding other potential patterns and opportunities among consumers.

5. Conclusions

The results showed that in France, among adults aged 18–44 years, an average of 246 g and 1126 kJ of dairy is consumed per day, from a variety of dairy sub-groups. Consumption of soft dairy products is promising, i.e., 118 g milk and 78 g yoghurt and other fermented dairy; this is consumption that is higher than other dairy sub-groups, despite remaining below the recommendations, i.e., 150 mL milk and 125 g yoghurt and other fermented dairy. Focusing on dietary patterns, dairy was more eaten than drunk (except for milk), in sweet and savoury dishes depending on the type of product, and in proper meals in combination with other foods, rarely by itself, and it is mostly consumed at traditional mealtimes and rarely as a mid-day snack. Suggestions to increase consumption could focus on maximizing these familiar consumption scenarios, per product type, or taking advantage of current patterns of low consumption to fill current gaps.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.M.A. and C.F.; methodology, K.M.A. and C.F.; investigation, C.F.; analysis, C.F.; writing—original draft preparation, C.F.; writing—review and editing, K.M.A., A.D., J.M. and C.F.; supervision, K.M.A., A.D. and J.M.; funding acquisition, K.M.A., A.D. and J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Bournemouth University, UK, the Institut Lyfe–Lyon for excellence Research & Innovation Center, France, and Danone S.A., and was completed as part of the PhD studentship (RED: 12534) undertaken by C.F. and supervised by A.D., J.M., and K.M.A.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Bournemouth University, UK (ID: 45760; approved date: 26 September 2022). The INCA3 database is public, already anonymised, and has obtained appropriate ethics approval before its data collection.

Informed Consent Statement

All INCA3 data are publicly available on https://www.data.gouv.fr/datasets (accessed on 1 July 2022); Verbal informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Verbal consent was witnessed and formally recorded.

Data Availability Statement

For this study, data were download from the INCA3 database. The INCA3 is entirely available online on the French website for data collected by public agencies. All data can be downloaded for free at https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/donnees-de-consommations-et-habitudes-alimentaires-de-letude-inca-3/#/resources (accessed on 1 July 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

This work was part funded by Danone S.A.–a company with a product portfolio that includes dairy products. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BMIBody Mass Index
INCAFrench Individual and National Survey Consumption
(études Individuelles Nationales des Consommations Alimentaires)
KcalKilocalories
kJKilojoules, 1 Kcal = 4.186 kJ.
PBDAPlant-Based Dairy Alternatives
PNNSFrench National Nutrition and Health Program
(Programme National Nutrition Santé)
UKUnited Kingdom

References

  1. Rozenberg, S.; Body, J.-J.; Bruyère, O.; Bergmann, P.; Brandi, M.L.; Cooper, C.; Devogelaer, J.-P.; Gielen, E.; Goemaere, S.; Kaufman, J.-M.; et al. Effects of Dairy Products Consumption on Health: Benefits and Beliefs—A Commentary from the Belgian Bone Club and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2016, 98, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Clegg, M.E.; Ribes, A.T.; Reynolds, R.; Kliem, K.; Stergiadis, S. A comparative assessment of the nutritional composition of dairy and plant-based dairy alternatives available for sale in the UK and the implications for consumers’ dietary intakes. Food Res. Int. 2021, 148, 110586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hoffman, J.R.; Falvo, M.J. Protein—Which is best? J. Sports Sci. Med. 2004, 3, 118–130. [Google Scholar]
  4. Mozaffarian, D. Dairy Foods, Obesity, and Metabolic Health: The Role of the Food Matrix Compared with Single Nutrients. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10, 917S–923S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Prentice, A.M. Dairy products in global public health. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 99, 1212S–1216S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tunick, M.H.; Van Hekken, D.L. Dairy Products and Health: Recent Insights. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 9381–9388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Savaiano, D.A.; Hutkins, R.W. Yogurt, cultured fermented milk, and health: A systematic review. Nutr. Rev. 2021, 79, 599–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kok, C.R.; Hutkins, R. Yogurt and other fermented foods as sources of health-promoting bacteria. Nutr. Rev. 2018, 76, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Das, C.; Das, P.P.; Kambhampati, S.B.S. Sarcopenia and Osteoporosis. JOIO 2023, 57, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hereford, T.; Kellish, A.; Samora, J.B.; Reid Nichols, L. Understanding the importance of peak bone mass. J. Pediatr. Orthop. Soc. N. Am. 2024, 7, 100031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Wallace, T.C.; Bailey, R.L.; Lappe, J.; O’bRien, K.O.; Wang, D.D.; Sahni, S.; Weaver, C.M. Dairy intake and bone health across the lifespan: A systematic review and expert narrative. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 3661–3707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zingone, F.; Bucci, C.; Iovino, P.; Ciacci, C. Consumption of milk and dairy products: Facts and figures. Nutrition 2017, 33, 322–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lad, S.S.; Aparnathi, K.D.; Mehta, B.; Velpula, S. Goat Milk in Human Nutrition and Health—A Review. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 1781–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Raynal-Ljutovac, K.; Lagriffoul, G.; Paccard, P.; Guillet, I.; Chilliard, Y. Composition of goat and sheep milk products: An update. Small Rumin. Res. 2008, 79, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  16. FAO. FAO Strategy on Climate Change 2022–2031; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022.
  17. Gaillac, R.; Marbach, S. The carbon footprint of meat and dairy proteins: A practical perspective to guide low carbon footprint dietary choices. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 128766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Berners-Lee, M.; Hoolohan, C.; Cammack, H.; Hewitt, C.N. The relative greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices. Energy Policy 2012, 43, 184–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Haenlein, G.F.W. About the evolution of goat and sheep milk production. Small Rumin. Res. 2007, 68, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peacock, C.; Sherman, D.M. Sustainable goat production—Some global perspectives. Small Rumin. Res. 2010, 89, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bylund, G. Dairy Processing Handbook; Tetra Pak Processing Systems: Lund, Sweden, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  22. World Health Organization; FAO. Milk and Milk Products, 2nd ed.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2011.
  23. Almena-Aliste, M.; Mietton, B. Cheese Classification, Characterization, and Categorization: A Global Perspective. Microbiol. Spectr. 2014, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Paul, A.A.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, V.; Sharma, R. Milk Analog: Plant based alternatives to conventional milk, production, potential and health concerns. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 3005–3023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ojeda, M.; Etaio, I.; Valentin, D.; Dacremont, C.; Zannoni, M.; Tupasela, T.; Lilleberg, L.; Pérez-Elortondo, F.J. Effect of consumers’ origin on perceived sensory quality, liking and liking drivers: A cross-cultural study on European cheeses. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104047. [Google Scholar]
  26. Palacios, O.M.; Badran, J.; Drake, M.A.; Reisner, M.; Moskowitz, H.R. Consumer acceptance of cow’s milk versus soy beverages: Impact of ethnicity, lactose tolerance and sensory preference segmentation. J. Sens. Stud. 2009, 24, 731–748. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cardello, A.V.; Llobell, F.; Jin, D.; Ryan, G.S.; Jaeger, S.R. Sensory drivers of liking, emotions, conceptual and sustainability concepts in plant-based and dairy yoghurts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 113, 105077. [Google Scholar]
  28. Brennan, L.; Francis, C.; Jenkins, E.L.; Schivinski, B.; Jackson, M.; Florence, E.; Parker, L.; Langley, S.; Lockrey, S.; Verghese, K.; et al. Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging in Its Role in Fighting Food Waste. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Franzon, C.; Dougkas, A.; Memery, J.; Prigent, J.; Appleton, K.M. A qualitative study to explore and identify reasons for dairy consumption and non-consumption among young adults (18–30 years old) in the UK and France. J. Nutr. Sci. 2024, 13, e90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cruwys, T.; Bevelander, K.E.; Hermans, R.C.J. Social modeling of eating: A review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice. Appetite 2015, 86, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Racey, M.; Bransfield, J.; Capello, K.; Field, D.; Kulak, V.; Machmueller, D.; Preyde, M.; Newton, G. Barriers and Facilitators to Intake of Dairy Products in Adolescent Males and Females with Different Levels of Habitual Intake. Glob. Pediatr. Health 2017, 4, 2333794X1769422. [Google Scholar]
  32. Douglas, M. Deciphering a Meal. Daedalus 1972, 101, 61–81. [Google Scholar]
  33. Harris, M. Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture; Waveland Press: Long Grove, IL, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chinea, C.; Suárez, E.; Hernández, B. Meaning of food in eating patterns. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 3331–3341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Holm, L.; Skov Luridsen, D.; Gronow, J.; Khama, N.; Kjærnes, U.; Bøker Lund, T.; Mäkelä, J.; Niva, M. The food we eat. In Everyday Eating in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. A Comparative Study of Meal Patterns 1997–2012; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2019; p. 248. [Google Scholar]
  36. Visser, M. The Rituals of Dinner. The Origin, Evolution, Eccentricities and Meaning of Table Manners; Penguin Books: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  37. Poulain, J.P. The contemporary diet in France: “de-structuration” or from commensalism to “vagabond feeding”. Appetite 2002, 39, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Delfosse, C. La France et ses terroirs. Un siècle de débats sur les produits et leurs liens à l’espace. Pour 2012, 215–216, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gray, A. “The Greatest Ordeal”: Using Biography to Explore the Victorian Dinner. Post-Mediev. Archaeol. 2010, 44, 255–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Harding, G. Dinner Is the Great Trial: Sociability and Service à la Russe in the Long Nineteenth Century. Eur. J. Food Drink Soc. 2021, 1, 55–78. [Google Scholar]
  41. Almerico, G.M. Food and identity: Food studies, cultural, and personal identity. J. Int. Bus. Cult. Stud. 2014, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  42. Duncan, S.E. Dairy Products: The Next Generation. Altering the Image of Dairy Products Through Technology. J. Dairy Sci. 1998, 81, 877–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pulina, G.; Milán, M.J.; Lavín, M.P.; Theodoridis, A.; Morin, E.; Capote, J.; Thomas, D.L.; Francesconi, A.H.D.; Caja, G. Invited review: Current production trends, farm structures, and economics of the dairy sheep and goat sectors. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 6715–6729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Laila, A.; Topakas, N.; Farr, E.; Haines, J.; Ma, D.W.; Newton, G.; Buchholz, A.C. Barriers and facilitators of household provision of dairy and plant-based dairy alternatives in families with preschool-age children. Public Health Nutr. 2021, 24, 5673–5685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kemp, B.J.; White-Flynn, T.T.; Lyons, O.C.; Cronin, B.E.; O’Donovan, C.B.; Donovan, C.M.; Flynn, M.A.T. Is it yoghurt or is it a dessert? Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2017, 76, E69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Valli, C.; Traill, W.B. Culture and food: A model of yoghurt consumption in the EU. Food Qual. Prefer. 2005, 16, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hobbs, D.A.; Durrant, C.; Elliott, J.; Givens, D.I.; Lovegrove, J.A. Diets containing the highest levels of dairy products are associated with greater eutrophication potential but higher nutrient intakes and lower financial cost in the United Kingdom. Eur. J. Nutr. 2020, 59, 895–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Agence de la Transition Ecologique. 2021 Agribalyse Dataset, Synthese. Available online: https://entrepot.recherche.data.gouv.fr/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.57745/XTENSJ (accessed on 1 May 2022).
  49. Our World in Data. “Yearly per Capita Supply of Milk—Excluding Butter” [Based on Original Dataset Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Food Balances: Food Balances (-2013, Old Methodology and Population)”; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Food Balances: Food Balances (2010-)]” 2025. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  50. European Dairy Association. EDA Factsheet ‘Daily Dairy Recommendations: Are We Eating Enough Dairy?’; European Dairy Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  51. Weaver, C.M. How sound is the science behind the dietary recommendations for dairy? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 99, 1217S–1222S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Baker, I.A.; Elwood, P.C.; Hughes, J.; Jones, M.; Moore, F.; Sweetnam, P.M. A randomised controlled trial of the effect of the provision of free school milk on the growth of children. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1980, 34, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Chen, G.-C.; Szeto, I.M.Y.; Chen, L.-H.; Han, S.-F.; Li, Y.-J.; van Hekezen, R.; Qin, L.-Q. Dairy products consumption and metabolic syndrome in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 14606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, K.; Wu, J. Meat–Egg–Dairy Consumption and Frailty among Chinese Older Adults: Exploring Rural/Urban and Gender Differences. Nutrients 2024, 16, 1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Laird, E.; Casey, M.C.; Ward, M.; Hoey, L.; Hughes, C.F.; Mccarroll, K.; Cunningham, C.; Strain, J.J.; Mcnulty, H.; Molloy, A.M. Dairy intakes in older Irish aduts and effects on vitamin micronutrient status: Data from the TUDA study. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2017, 21, 954–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kapaj, A. Factors that influence milk consumption world trends and facts. Eur. J. Bus. Econ. Account. 2018, 6, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  57. Charby, J.; Hébel, P.; Vaudaine, S. Les produits laitiers en France: Évolution du marché et place dans la diète. Cah. Nutr. Diététique 2017, 52, S25–S34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé. Programme National Nutrition Santé 2019–2023 (PNNS4), Annexe 4; Ministère du Travail, de la Santé, des Solidarités et de Famille: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  59. Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire (ANSES). INCA 3: Evolution des Habitudes et Modes de Consommation, de Nouveaux Enjeux en Matière de Sécurité Sanitaire et de Nutrition. 2017. Available online: https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/inca-3-evolution-des-habitudes-et-modes-de-consommation-de-nouveaux-enjeux-en-matiere-de (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  60. Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire (ANSES). Étude Individuelle Nationale des Consommations Alimentaires 3 (INCA 3); Avis de l’Anses—Rapport d’Expertise Collective; Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire (ANSES): Maisons-Alfor, France, 2017.
  61. Ministère du Travail, de la Santé, des Solidarités et de Famille. Programme National Nutrition Santé (PNNS)—Professionnels. 2025. Available online: https://sante.gouv.fr/prevention-en-sante/preserver-sa-sante/le-programme-national-nutrition-sante/article/programme-national-nutrition-sante-pnns-professionnels (accessed on 18 March 2025).
  62. Tamime, A. Fermented milks: A historical food with modern applications—A review. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2002, 56, S2–S15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Public Health England. The Eatwell Guide; Public Health England: London, UK, 2016.
  64. U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
  65. Adamczyk, D.; Jaworska, D.; Affeltowicz, D.; Maison, D. Plant-Based Dairy Alternatives: Consumers’ Perceptions, Motivations, and Barriers—Results from a Qualitative Study in Poland, Germany, and France. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Varela, P.; Arvisenet, G.; Gonera, A.; Myhrer, K.S.; Fifi, V.; Valentin, D. Meat replacer? No thanks! The clash between naturalness and processing: An explorative study of the perception of plant-based foods. Appetite 2022, 169, 105793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Leech, R.M.; Worsley, A.; Timperio, A.; McNaughton, S.A. Characterizing eating patterns: A comparison of eating occasion definitions. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2015, 102, 1229–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hess, J.M.; Jonnalagadda, S.S.; Slavin, J.L. What Is a Snack, Why Do We Snack, and How Can We Choose Better Snacks? A Review of the Definitions of Snacking, Motivations to Snack, Contributions to Dietary Intake, and Recommendations for Improvement. Adv. Nutr. 2016, 7, 466–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ovaskainen, M.-L.; Reinivuo, H.; Tapanainen, H.; Hannila, M.-L.; Korhonen, T.; Pakkala, H. Snacks as an element of energy intake and food consumption. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 60, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Observatoire Economique de l’Achat Publique. Recommandation Nutrition Groupe d’étude des Marchès de Restauration Collective et Nutrition GEM-RCN. Version 2.0—July 2015; Observatoire Economique de l’Achat Publique: Paris, France, 2015.
  71. Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé. Programme National Nutrition Santé (PNNS) 2019–2023; Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  72. ANSES. Ciqual Table de Composition Nutritionnelle des Aliments. 2016. Available online: https://ciqual.anses.fr/ (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  73. European Commission. MMO Economic Board. Milk Market Observatory. Annex: Milk Market Situation. 2023. Available online: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/markets/overviews/market-observatories/milk_en (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  74. Szczepańska, E.; Janota, B.; Wlazło, M.; Czapla, M. Eating behaviours, the frequency of consumption of selected food products, and selected elements of lifestyle among young dancers. Rocz. Panstw. Zakl. Hig. 2021, 72, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  75. Cesbron-Lavau, E.; Lubrano-Lavadera, A.-S.; Braesco, V.; Deschamps, E. Fromages blancs, petits-suisses et laits fermentés riches en protéines. Cah. Nutr. Diététique 2017, 52, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bourlioux, P. Histoire des laits fermentes. Cah. Nutr. Diététique 2007, 42, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Herpin, N. Le repas comme institution: Compte rendu d’une enquête exploratoire. Rev. Française Sociol. 1988, 29, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Roy, B.D. Milk: The new sports drink? A Review. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2008, 5, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ng, S.W.; Ni Mhurchu, C.; Jebb, S.A.; Popkin, B.M. Patterns and trends of beverage consumption among children and adults in Great Britain, 1986–2009. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108, 536–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. 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]
  81. Corvera-Paredes, B.; Sánchez-Reséndiz, A.I.; Medina, D.I.; Espiricueta-Candelaria, R.S.; Serna-Saldívar, S.; Chuck-Hernández, C. Soft Tribology and Its Relationship with the Sensory Perception in Dairy Products: A Review. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 874763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Kupiec, B.; Revell, B. Speciality and artisanal cheeses today: The product and the consumer. Br. Food J. 1998, 100, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Conti-Silva, A.C.; Souza-Borges, P.K.D. Sensory characteristics, brand and probiotic claim on the overall liking of commercial probiotic fermented milks: Which one is more relevant? Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Farag, M.A.; Jomaa, S.A.; Abd El-Wahed, A.; El-Seedi, H.R. The Many Faces of Kefir Fermented Dairy Products: Quality Characteristics, Flavour Chemistry, Nutritional Value, Health Benefits, and Safety. Nutrients 2020, 12, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Saint-Eve, A.; Leclercq, H.; Berthelo, S.; Saulnier, B.; Oettgen, W.; Delarue, J. How much sugar do consumers add to plain yogurts? Insights from a study examining French consumer behavior and self-reported habits. Appetite 2016, 99, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Michaud, C.; Baudier, F.; Guilbert, P.; Carel, D.; Le Bihan, G.; Gautier, A.; Delamaire, C. Les repas des français: Résultats du baromètre santé nutrition 2002. Cah. Nutr. Diététique 2004, 39, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Michels, N.; De Henauw, S.; Beghin, L.; Cuenca-García, M.; Gonzalez-Gross, M.; Hallstrom, L.; Kafatos, A.; Kersting, M.; Manios, Y.; Marcos, A.; et al. Ready-to-eat cereals improve nutrient, milk and fruit intake at breakfast in European adolescents. Eur. J. Nutr. 2016, 55, 771–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ozdogan, Y.; Yardimci, H.; Ozcelik, A.O. Young adults’ milk consumption habits and knowledge about milk. Stud. Ethno-Med. 2017, 11, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rubio-Martín, E.; García-Escobar, E.; Ruiz de Adana, M.-S.; Lima-Rubio, F.; Peláez, L.; Caracuel, A.-M.; Bermúdez-Silva, F.-J.; Soriguer, F.; Rojo-Martínez, G.; Olveira, G. Comparison of the Effects of Goat Dairy and Cow Dairy Based Breakfasts on Satiety, Appetite Hormones, and Metabolic Profile. Nutrients 2017, 9, 877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Blondin, S.A.; Goldberg, J.P.; Cash, S.B.; Griffin, T.S.; Economos, C.D. Factors Influencing Fluid Milk Waste in a Breakfast in the Classroom School Breakfast Program. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018, 50, 349–356.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Fagt, S.; Matthiessen, J.; Thyregod, C.; Kørup, K.; Biltoft-Jensen, A. Breakfast in Denmark. Prevalence of Consumption, Intake of Foods, Nutrients and Dietary Quality. A Study from the International Breakfast Research Initiative. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Murphy, M.; Cowan, C.; Meehan, H.; O’Reilly, S. A conjoint analysis of Irish consumer preferences for farmhouse cheese. Br. Food J. 2004, 106, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Jaeger, S.R.; Porcherot, C. Consumption context in consumer research: Methodological perspectives. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 15, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Borghini, A. What Is a Recipe? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 719–738. [Google Scholar]
  95. Jung, M.E.; Mistry, C.; Bourne, J.E.; Perrier, M.-J.; Martin Ginis, K.A.; Latimer-Cheung, A.E. A qualitative investigation of adults’ perceived benefits, barriers and strategies for consuming milk and milk products. Health Educ. J. 2015, 74, 364–378. [Google Scholar]
  96. Garabuau-Moussaoui, I. La cuisine des jeunes: Désordre alimentaire, identité générationnelle et ordre social. Anthropol. Food-Tradit. Identités Aliment. Locales 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hasan, B.; Thompson, W.G.; Almasri, J.; Wang, Z.; Lakis, S.; Prokop, L.J.; Hensrud, D.D.; Frie, K.S.; Wirtz, M.J.; Murad, A.L.; et al. The effect of culinary interventions (cooking classes) on dietary intake and behavioral change: A systematic review and evidence map. BMC Nutr. 2019, 5, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Lee, Y.; Kim, T.; Jung, H. The Relationships between Food Literacy, Health Promotion Literacy and Healthy Eating Habits among Young Adults in South Korea. Foods 2022, 11, 2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Delfosse, C. La diffusion mondiale de la consommation de fromage, de l’ingrédient de pizza au produit de terroir. Pour 2012, 215–216, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Fumey, G. La France, un plateau de fromages. Géographie 2012, 1544, 25–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Forwood, S.E. Solving the diet problem: Meals as food choice heuristics for behaviour change. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2025, 64, 101317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Fatemi, B.; Duval, Q.; Girdhar, R.; Drozdzal, M.; Romero-Soriano, A. Learning to Substitute Ingredients in Recipes. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2302.07960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Glanz, K. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake by changing environments, policy and pricing: Restaurant-based research, strategies, and recommendations. Prev. Med. 2004, 39, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Glanz, K.; Mullis, R.M. Environmental Interventions to Promote Healthy Eating: A Review of Models, Programs, and Evidence. Health Educ. Q. 1988, 15, 395–415. [Google Scholar]
  105. Mandracchia, F.; Tarro, L.; Llauradó, E.; Valls, R.M.; Solà, R. Interventions to Promote Healthy Meals in Full-Service Restaurants and Canteens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Rozman, U.; Lorber, M.; Bolha, A.; Bahar, J.B.; Lavrič, M.; Turk, S.Š. Sustainability aspects of food and drinks offered in vending machines at Slovenian universities. Front. Nutr. 2025, 12, 1439690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Whatnall, M.; Fozard, T.; Kolokotroni, K.Z.; Marwood, J.; Evans, T.; Ells, L.J.; Burrows, T. Understanding eating behaviours, mental health and weight change in young adults: Protocol paper for an international longitudinal study. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e064963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Calabro, R.; Kemps, E.; Prichard, I.; Tiggemann, M. Vending machine backgrounds: Nudging healthier beverage choices. Curr. Psychol. 2024, 43, 1733–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Bos, C.; van der Lans, I.A.; van Kleef, E.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Promoting healthy choices from vending machines: Effectiveness and consumer evaluations of four types of interventions. Food Policy 2018, 79, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Rosi, A.; Zerbini, C.; Pellegrini, N.; Scazzina, F.; Brighenti, F.; Lugli, G. How to improve food choices through vending machines: The importance of healthy food availability and consumers’ awareness. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 62, 262–269. [Google Scholar]
  111. Carrad, A.M.; Louie, J.C.; Milosavljevic, M.; Kelly, B.; Flood, V.M. Consumer support for healthy food and drink vending machines in public places. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2015, 39, 355–357. [Google Scholar]
  112. Palascha, A.; Chang, B.P.I. Which messages about healthy and sustainable eating resonate best with consumers with low socio-economic status? Appetite 2024, 198, 107350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Myers, J.; Schweiger, D.; Clark, S. Dairy nutrition educational messages help increase dairy product knowledge, purchasing, and consumption. JDS Commun. 2024, 5, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Hohoff, E.; Perrar, I.; Jancovic, N.; Alexy, U. Age and time trends of dairy intake among children and adolescents of the DONALD study. Eur. J. Nutr. 2021, 60, 3861–3872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Desbouys, L.; Méjean, C.; De Henauw, S.; Castetbon, K. Socio-economic and cultural disparities in diet among adolescents and young adults: A systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2020, 23, 843–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Witard, O.C.; Devrim-Lanpir, A.; McKinley, M.C.; Givens, D.I. Navigating the protein transition: Why dairy and its matrix matter amid rising plant protein trends. Nutr. Res. Rev. 2025, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Yackobovitch-Gavan, M.; Phillip, M.; Gat-Yablonski, G. How Milk and Its Proteins Affect Growth, Bone Health, and Weight. Horm. Res. Paediatr. 2017, 88, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gastronomy 03 00018 g001
Figure 1. Average weight consumed (a) and energy content consumed (b) for each dairy sub-group. Percentages are shown to highlight the impact of the different products compared to the total intake.
Figure 1. Average weight consumed (a) and energy content consumed (b) for each dairy sub-group. Percentages are shown to highlight the impact of the different products compared to the total intake.
Gastronomy 03 00018 g001
Gastronomy 03 00018 g002
Figure 2. How dairy sub-groups are consumed [%]. Dairy is mostly “eaten”, except for milk and PBDA.
Figure 2. How dairy sub-groups are consumed [%]. Dairy is mostly “eaten”, except for milk and PBDA.
Gastronomy 03 00018 g002
Gastronomy 03 00018 g003
Figure 3. How dairy sub-groups are consumed [%]. Sub-groups can be consumed differently, some of them in both savoury and sweet dishes, or neither way. Only 2 records (0.03%) were classified as “Mix”. 1260 records (22%) were classified as “Neither”.
Figure 3. How dairy sub-groups are consumed [%]. Sub-groups can be consumed differently, some of them in both savoury and sweet dishes, or neither way. Only 2 records (0.03%) were classified as “Mix”. 1260 records (22%) were classified as “Neither”.
Gastronomy 03 00018 g003
Gastronomy 03 00018 g004
Figure 4. How dairy sub-groups are consumed [%]. ‘In meal’ refers to dairy entries recorded in the same meal with other foods, but without specific details of combination.
Figure 4. How dairy sub-groups are consumed [%]. ‘In meal’ refers to dairy entries recorded in the same meal with other foods, but without specific details of combination.
Gastronomy 03 00018 g004
Gastronomy 03 00018 g005
Figure 5. All dairy and all soft dairy consumption by hour. Soft dairy includes milk, yoghurt, fermented dairy, and soft cheese.
Figure 5. All dairy and all soft dairy consumption by hour. Soft dairy includes milk, yoghurt, fermented dairy, and soft cheese.
Gastronomy 03 00018 g005
Gastronomy 03 00018 g006
Figure 6. Soft dairy sub-groups, hard cheese, and dessert consumption by hour.
Figure 6. Soft dairy sub-groups, hard cheese, and dessert consumption by hour.
Gastronomy 03 00018 g006
Table 1. Average weight consumed and energy content of all dairy, all soft dairy, and each dairy sub-group. Energy content is reported in kcal and kJ; 1 kcal = 4.186 kJ.
Table 1. Average weight consumed and energy content of all dairy, all soft dairy, and each dairy sub-group. Energy content is reported in kcal and kJ; 1 kcal = 4.186 kJ.
N = 783Average Weight Consumed [g/Day]Average Energy Intake [kcal/Day]Average Energy Intake [kJ/day]
All dairy2462691126
Soft dairy215187783
Milk11860252
Yoghurt6354227
Fermented dairy151875.3
Soft cheese1954227
Hard cheese1245187
Dessert1936151
Cream0.20.62.5
Sauce0.50.62.5
PBDA327
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

Franzon, C.; Dougkas, A.; Memery, J.; Appleton, K.M. How Do French Adults Consume Their Dairy Foods? A Characterisation Study Using the INCA3 Database. Gastronomy 2025, 3, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/gastronomy3040018

AMA Style

Franzon C, Dougkas A, Memery J, Appleton KM. How Do French Adults Consume Their Dairy Foods? A Characterisation Study Using the INCA3 Database. Gastronomy. 2025; 3(4):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/gastronomy3040018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Franzon, Caterina, Anestis Dougkas, Juliet Memery, and Katherine M. Appleton. 2025. "How Do French Adults Consume Their Dairy Foods? A Characterisation Study Using the INCA3 Database" Gastronomy 3, no. 4: 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/gastronomy3040018

APA Style

Franzon, C., Dougkas, A., Memery, J., & Appleton, K. M. (2025). How Do French Adults Consume Their Dairy Foods? A Characterisation Study Using the INCA3 Database. Gastronomy, 3(4), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/gastronomy3040018

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop