Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkfull text checked I-DRY-122 standard review

Nordic guideline review: dairy fits a healthy diet

Milk and dairy products - a scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023.

Overview

Bjorklund Holven K et al.. Food Nutr Res 2024 · PMID 39781268 · DOI 10.29219/fnr.v68.10486

No increased heart disease risk; lower bowel cancer; limited prostate signal.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Summarise dairy evidence for Nordic guidelines.

How was the study done?

Scoping review.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

Many systematic reviews.

What was actually found?

Dairy not harmful for heart; helpful for calcium.

How large was the observed effect?

Narrative.

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Dairy can be part of healthy eating.

What are the study's limitations?

Not graded.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Contradicts general harm.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Applicable.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cannot rank individual dairy types precisely.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Bjorklund Holven K et al.
Journal
Food Nutr Res
Year
2024
Identifier
PMID 39781268 DOI 10.29219/fnr.v68.10486
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
full text
Conflicts of interest and funding

No industry funding; small reimbursement from the Norwegian Directorate of Health.

2. Research question

What is the evidence on milk and dairy for health outcomes as a basis for NNR 2023?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Systematic review – Scoping review of qualified systematic reviews (WCRF, US DGAC 2020) and systematic reviews 2011-2022 (555 records screened)
Population

Adults and children

Country

Nordic/Baltic (evidence international)

Period

2011-2022

Sample size

159 records evaluated

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Systematic reviews

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Milk and dairy

Comparator

n/a

Endpoints

CVD, T2D, cancer, bone, other

Statistical methods

Narrative

5. Actual results

Results

Systematic reviews suggest milk/dairy not associated with increased CVD or dyslipidaemia; inverse associations with some cardiometabolic factors, especially fermented dairy; reduced colorectal cancer (WCRF strong evidence); limited evidence for prostate cancer increase; MR: no or limited evidence for milk and prostate cancer, no support for effects on hip fracture or BMD in adults; 'the overall evidence does not support a link between dairy consumption and fractures'; some evidence from intervention studies that milk in childhood/adolescence speeds linear growth and benefits bone. Milk and dairy are important sources of calcium and iodine.

Absolute risks

not reported

Authors' conclusion

Milk or dairy products are important dietary sources of calcium and iodine and are fully compatible with a healthy dietary pattern.

6. Strengths

  • Official evidence base for a regional guideline
  • Independent of industry

7. Weaknesses

  • Scoping (not graded)
  • Literature to 2022

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
none applicable
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
low
Rationale

Scoping review for guideline.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Narrative.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

An independent guideline evidence review finds dairy compatible with a healthy diet and not harmful for CVD, with fermented dairy favourable.

11. Independent contrary findings

Limited prostate signal acknowledged.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Nordic; Egyptian diets differ but biology is shared.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Strong contextual evidence against general harm.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biaslow
Precision of resultsnot applicable
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityunknown
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

n/a

15. Linked fact checks