Most dairy foods linked to neutral or better health but yogurt stands out for real benefits

By Vijay Kumar MalesuReviewed by Susha Cheriyedath, M.Sc.Jul 28 2025

A sweeping evidence map finds that while most dairy foods don’t harm and may help your health, yogurt and fermented dairy top the charts for reducing the risk of major diseases.

Review: Association between dairy intake and multiple health outcomes: a scoping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Image Credit: LADO / Shutterstock

In a recent study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a group of researchers summarized the relationship between different dairy foods and major health outcomes in adults, charting evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) published since 2014.

This comprehensive scoping review mapped the available evidence, integrating both observational studies and randomized controlled trials, to clarify the relationship between dairy intake and a broad range of health outcomes.

Background

Two to three dairy servings a day are commonly recommended to meet protein and micronutrient needs, yet many people fall short. Meanwhile, chronic diseases continue to rise, and news headlines often send mixed signals about milk, yogurt, and cheese. For everyday choices, from the grocery aisle to lunch at work, people want clarity.

Prior evidence suggests potential benefits, but concerns about saturated fat persist. Given dairy’s long history in the human diet and its central place in food guidelines, it is timely to re-map the full evidence landscape across multiple health outcomes.

Previous research has often focused on specific products, age groups, or health markers, leaving gaps in understanding the broader impacts of dairy consumption. Further research is needed to clarify the product-specific effects and identify the populations most likely to benefit.

About the study

The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) on February 19, 2024, and the review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A systematic search (February 19, 2024) covered Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science, limited to SRs and/or MAs in English, German, French, or Spanish. Reports from the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) were added.

Eligibility was set using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Population-Concept-Context framework. Included were SRs/MAs (2014–February 19, 2024) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, case–control studies, and cross-sectional studies in mostly adults; exposures included cow’s milk and other dairy foods. Outcomes spanned cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), cancers (e.g., bladder, breast, colorectal, ovarian, prostate, gastric), body composition, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), bone and joint health, and cognitive outcomes.

Study management used Zotero and Rayyan for de-duplication and dual review screening. Data extraction (pre-tested template) was conducted using Elicit software, with details checked and refined by reviewers.

It is worth noting that studies involving children, non-bovine dairy products, and fortified or supplemental dairy products were excluded, and many reviews did not provide details on regional differences or vitamin D fortification.

Study results

In the study, 95 reports mapped associations between five dairy exposure categories and 29 outcomes. Across 281 associations, 37.7% suggested reduced risk, 48.0% no association, 10.0% were inconclusive, and 4.3% suggested increased risk. Category coverage was total dairy (n = 66 reports), milk (n = 52), cheese (n = 43), yogurt (n = 40), and fermented dairy (n = 13).

Most associations for total dairy were neutral or protective across CVD, CHD, stroke, and hypertension; exceptions appeared for cardiovascular mortality. Reduced risks were also charted for bladder, breast, colorectal, and oral cancers, overweight/obesity, T2DM, and some joint outcomes. A few reports linked total dairy with a higher risk of liver, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ovarian, prostate, and gastric cancers. For readers, this means that usual mixed dairy patterns are generally not associated with higher chronic disease risk and may provide modest protection in several domains.

Across outcomes, milk often showed reduced or neutral associations for CVD outcomes, with some heterogeneity. Milk intake was linked to a lower risk of oral, bladder, and colorectal cancers in several reports; however, a few analyses associated milk with a higher risk of breast, prostate, liver, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Body weight evidence was sparse but suggested a lower risk of overweight/obesity. Mortality findings were mixed (mostly neutral or inconclusive). For everyday practice, plain milk appears broadly neutral to modestly favorable, with caution that some cancer findings conflict across studies.

Cheese showed heterogeneous results: several reports linked it to a lower incidence of CVD and a reduced risk for selected cancers (breast, colorectal, oral, and ovarian), while others were neutral; however, one report found an increased risk for prostate cancer. Mortality associations were generally neutral; findings for T2DM were mixed. The variability in results for cheese may reflect differences in composition and study definitions.

Yogurt stood out, as no associations suggesting harm were found. Multiple reports have linked yogurt to lower risks of bladder, breast, colorectal, esophageal, liver, and oral cancers, as well as reduced risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, with some neutral findings. For consumers, swapping a daily snack for yogurt could be a simple, potentially beneficial choice.

When fermented foods (e.g., yogurt, cultured/sour milk, some cheeses) were grouped, evidence suggested reduced risk of CVD, stroke, several cancers (bladder, breast, esophageal), T2DM, and all-cause mortality, with neutral findings for colorectal cancer in some reports and a single report noting an increased all-cause mortality association.

Sub-analyses comparing full-fat vs. reduced-fat dairy mostly found no differential harm; in fact, inverse associations appeared for several cardiovascular outcomes with both full- and reduced-fat dairy. Notable exceptions included full-fat milk being linked to a higher risk in a few stroke analyses, and ovarian cancer showing an increased association with full-fat milk but an inverse association with reduced-fat milk in one report. Mortality differences by fat level were essentially null, with isolated exceptions.

The authors highlight that many systematic reviews and meta-analyses included overlapping populations, which may have inflated the apparent associations for specific outcomes. In addition, only about half of the reports stratified results by sex, limiting insight into potential differences between men and women.

Another limitation noted is the lack of standardization in dairy product definitions, which vary by country, processing, and composition, making direct comparisons challenging. Furthermore, bone health outcomes in adults were under-represented, as most research has focused on calcium supplementation or pediatric populations rather than regular dairy intake in adults.

Conclusions

To summarize, across SRs and MAs, dairy consumption is generally neutral or modestly protective for major noncommunicable outcomes, with yogurt and other fermented dairy showing the most consistent associations with lower risks—an actionable insight for daily eating patterns. Variation across products (especially cheese types) and some cancer signals (e.g., prostate, ovarian) call for nuance rather than one-size-fits-all advice. Future work should deepen product-specific analyses (particularly for fermented dairy) and clarify when fat content matters, so that individuals and public health programs can tailor guidance to maximize benefits while monitoring potential risks.

The authors recommend that future research should improve dietary assessment methods (e.g., using repeated food frequency questionnaires) and clarify the role of fortified versus non-fortified products to better inform nutritional guidelines.