Introduction
Dairy is a wide category of food that includes products differing in taste, appearance, smell, texture, and the manner in which they are consumed (their mode of consumption).(Reference Almena-Aliste and Mietton1,Reference Ojeda, Etaio and Valentin2) These products provide bioactive compounds, calcium, and other micronutrients that help maintain a healthy diet.(Reference Rozenberg, Body and Bruyère3,Reference Rouf, Grech and Allman-Farinelli4) The consumption of dairy is beneficial during all life stages to optimize bone density, maintain gut health, and reduce the risk of developing other non-communicable diseases.(Reference Rozenberg, Body and Bruyère3–Reference Farag, Jomaa and Abd El-Wahed11)
Preferring dairy to other animal-based products has also been associated with more sustainable diets from nutritional, environmental, societal, and economic perspectives, as given in the definition of sustainability from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.(12) Moreover, a recent paper shows that by reducing meat consumption in favour of more dairy, particularly soft dairy, people may be able to engage in sustainable actions and lower carbon lifestyles.(Reference Guy, Bray and Appleton13) Soft dairy refers to milk, yoghurt, fermented products, and unripened soft cheese.(Reference Almena-Aliste and Mietton1) Its consumption has been associated with healthier, low cost, and more environmentally friendly diets.(Reference van de Kamp, Seves and Temme14–Reference Drewnowski22)
Despite national dietary guidelines around the world advising the consumption of dairy every day,(Reference Sandström, Valin and Krisztin23) in several countries, dairy intakes are reported to be lower than recommended.(Reference Comerford, Miller and Boileau24–Reference Laird, Casey, Ward and Hoey27) In 2021, the European Dairy Association reported underconsumption of dairy in 18 out of 23 countries,(28) e.g. in France, the average consumption of milk was at the time about 75 ml/day, while the daily recommendation was 300 ml.(28) Moreover, recommended intakes in global dietary guidelines are not harmonized, with different countries suggesting differing amounts.(Reference Savaiano and Hutkins19,Reference Comerford, Miller and Boileau24,28,Reference Prentice29) For instance, in France the recommended daily intake of dairy is 2 servings, where the portion size is 150 g of milk, 125 g of yoghurt, or 30 g of cheese, while the British dietary guidelines provide an upper limit based on energy intake, advising consumers not to exceed 8% of total daily caloric intake through dairy intake.(28) Alongside this, dairy products such as fermented dairy or cultured milk are rarely included in recommended dietary intakes despite their positive contributions to health.(Reference Savaiano and Hutkins19)
While low dairy intakes are of concern for all ages of the population, consumption strongly decreases after adolescence and the school years.(Reference Louie, Flood and Gopinath25,28,Reference Hohoff, Perrar and Jancovic30) Young individuals aged between 18 and 30 years old typically have poor dietary habits, e.g. low fruit and vegetable intake.(Reference Pendergast, Livingstone and Worsley31,Reference Poobalan, Aucott and Clarke32) Young adulthood is a stage of life that is crucial in the development of new habits that will impact the future health of individuals,(Reference Racey, Bransfield and Capello33–Reference Arrazat, Nicklaus and De Lauzon-Guillain36) but young adults tend to have limited awareness and knowledge concerning dietary topics, including the benefits of dairy intake.(Reference Rabiei, Zahedi and Abtahi37,Reference Deliens, Deforche and De Bourdeaudhuij38) Personal negative experiences, such as discomfort and digestive issues following dairy intake,(Reference Rabiei, Zahedi and Abtahi37,Reference Laila, Topakas and Farr39) and/or misconceptions or personal beliefs, e.g. an association between dairy consumption and acne,(Reference Markovic, Soldatovic and Bjekic40) may lead to non-consumption of this category of foods, and even where nutritional literacy is increased through intervention, dairy intake can remain low.(Reference Deliens, Van Crombruggen and Verbruggen41)
Many facilitators and barriers have been found to influence healthy eating, including dairy consumption, in different populations and different countries.(Reference Cardel, Szurek and Dillard42–Reference Appleton46) These barriers and facilitators may be personal, e.g. preferences, socio-economic position; or external to the individual, e.g. availability, food culture.(Reference Ojeda, Etaio and Valentin2,Reference Prentice29,Reference Racey, Bransfield and Capello33,Reference Chang, Wang and Kuo47) Furthermore, the same factors may assume different roles and impact positively or negatively on dairy consumption and can act as barriers or facilitators based on the target population.(Reference Rabiei, Zahedi and Abtahi37) These factors were also found to influence consumption across cultures.(Reference Rabiei, Zahedi and Abtahi37,Reference Laila, Topakas and Farr39,Reference Rouf, Clayton and Allman-Farinelli48) Culture and familiarity with products can affect food choices through a role in attitude formation, such as in creating food taboos or reinforcing societal meal habits.(Reference Pieniak, Verbeke and Vanhonacker49–Reference Merlino, Renna and Nery54) Even now, with many non-traditional food products available due to globalization, traditions and customs still shape the majority of dietary patterns in Europe,(Reference Trichopoulou, Soukara and Vasilopoulou50) including dairy consumption.(Reference Merlino, Renna and Nery54) Consumers living in different countries indeed show different eating patterns, including dairy consumption, due to different histories, educations, or market policies,(Reference Rozin55) and these factors may also have a role as barriers or facilitators to consumption.(Reference Rozin55–Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Tajonar and Foggi57)
While many reasons for consumption and non-consumption are known, however, most studies in the literature tend to focus on one product only (e.g. cow’s milk) or one product category (e.g. yoghurt), while avoiding comparisons between different products and product categories. Investigating the barriers and facilitators for a range of dairy foods and product categories across more than one culture would add depth to our understanding of dairy consumption. Considering the important role that dairy may assume in healthy and more sustainable diets, this study aimed to explore the reasons for (non)consumption of a wide list of dairy products among young adults aged between 18 and 30 years living in different countries. Identifying barriers, facilitators, and motivations for consumption is an important aspect to consider when developing strategies to promote higher dairy intake among the target population.
Materials and methods
This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human participants were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Bournemouth University, UK (ID: 43726). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Data were collected in Bournemouth, UK, and in Ecully, Lyon, France, in collaboration with the Institut Paul Bocuse Research Center, now known as the Institut Lyfe Research Center, in Ecully, Lyon, France. The UK and France were chosen for comparison considering that both countries are in the top 15 milk-producing countries in the world,(Reference Uberoi58) and have a homogeneous national food culture, with few differences between regions.(59) However, the most commonly consumed dairy foods in the two countries are different: cow’s milk and hard cheese are most commonly consumed in the UK(28,Reference Uberoi58) ; in France, cow and non-cattle dairy, i.e. goat’s and sheep’s dairy, are most commonly consumed as milk, yoghurt, cottage cheese, and soft cheeses.(28,59,60)
Participants
Young adults aged 18–30 years old were recruited through social media, flyers, community groups, and snowball sampling to participate in either in-person focus groups or in-person individual interviews. To be eligible, they were required to live in the country where the focus group or individual interview took place, speak the country’s language fluently, and not follow a vegan diet. Before the interview, they received, by email, a participant information sheet, completed a demographics questionnaire, and signed a consent form. No participants were admitted to the study without signing this form. In the demographic questionnaire, participants were asked for details about their age, gender, employment, level of education, the city in which they lived at the time and if they were following a specific diet (i.e. vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian, ovo-vegetarian, lacto-vegetarian, and flexitarian). These details were collected to confirm select inclusion criteria (as above) and further describe the study sample. Participants were able to withdraw from the study at any time before or during the study but not after the end of their focus group or interview, as all data collected were anonymized during transcription, stored confidentially, and made available only to researchers related to the study. Each participant was given an identification code based on the country in which they were taking part in the study, the method of assessment, i.e. focus group or individual interview, and a number, e.g. UKFG1P1. Students at Bournemouth University taking part in the study were compensated with course credits. Due to recruitment limitations and to reach an adequate number of participants in both countries, young adults taking part in the study at a late stage received a gift voucher as compensation for their time. All participants were recruited following the same scheme, with no reference to reimbursement.
Focus group and individual interviews
Each participant took part in one focus group or individual interview. While focus groups are a good method to collect data from a range of different people and allow for varied discussion and interactions, individual interviews are also useful for understanding a single person’s point of view(Reference Tong, Sainsbury and Craig61) and discussing topics that people may not feel comfortable sharing in a group.(Reference Kruger, Rodgers and Long62)
Semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews were conducted in both countries, in the country’s native language by the same moderator. Participants taking part in focus groups had the opportunity to choose to attend a group of only their own gender or a group of mixed gender. When participants were not available to take part in a focus group, they were invited to take part in an individual interview at a time/day they preferred.
Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted following the same moderator guide (Supplementary Materials, Appendix A) to ensure discussion of all topics of interest. The moderator guide was intended to help the interviewer, not to rigidly structure the conversation; thus, the topics were discussed in a different order depending on the debate. All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded.
As a starting question, participants were asked about their dairy consumption (i.e. “Do you consume dairy?”) and to share their reasons for consumption and non-consumption of a wide range of cow and non-cattle dairy products (e.g. “Do you consume cow’s milk?” “why is that?”). Participants were not asked to quantify how much they consumed of any given product and were only asked if they do or do not consume each food to begin the conversations. Questioning remained informal and causal, without reference to dietary recommendations or guidelines to ensure participants felt comfortable discussing their true level of consumption and reasons for this. Participants were asked about their consumption of milk, yoghurts, fermented milk, and other fermented dairy, dairy-to-drink, dairy desserts, creams, hard cheeses, soft cheeses, cream cheeses, and local and organic dairy foods. Questions about factors that may lead them to consume more or less dairy products were included. Questions about non-cattle dairy were also asked, as these products are more likely to be associated with local farming(Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Tajonar and Foggi57) and goat’s milk has been reported to be more digestible than cow’s milk,(Reference Lad, Aparnathi and Mehta63) making this product suitable for consumers sensitive to lactose or other digestion-related issues. Non-cattle dairy products may also be considered less demanding on resources than cow’s dairy, as these animals can live in remote regions and do not need high-input farms,(Reference Faye and Konuspayeva64) but the milk yield of these species is typically lower than cow’s, thus impacting dairy production.(Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Tajonar and Foggi57,Reference Faye and Konuspayeva64,Reference Pulina, Milán and Lavín65) Questions were also asked about the consumption of plant-based dairy alternatives, as recent studies have found consumers doubting the need to consume dairy products, both for health and climate change reasons.(Reference Rozenberg, Body and Bruyère3,Reference Thorning, Raben and Tholstrup7,Reference van de Kamp, Seves and Temme14,59,Reference Askegaard and Linnet66) Consequentially, the consumption of plant-based dairy alternatives has increased, as has consumer interest in this product category.(Reference Thorning, Raben and Tholstrup7,60)
Within each focus group or interview, to stimulate the discussion, participants were provided with the opportunity to taste English and French local cheeses (i.e. a semi-hard cheese, a Laughing Cow®, a goat’s soft cheese, a blue cheese, e.g. Roquefort, a soft cheese, e.g. Brie). This consumption was entirely voluntary and was intended solely to stimulate product-related discussion. Participants were also provided with tea, coffee, crackers, and fruits.
Analysis
A thematic analysis, aiming to explore and identify reasons for dairy consumption, was performed following the guidance of Braun and Clarke, 2006.(Reference Braun and Clarke67) This process included six steps: (1) familiarization with the data collected; (2) the coding process; (3) the creation of themes from the codes; (4) the creation of a thematic map, links between themes and codes and between themes and all data; (5) the creation of names and definitions to clarify each theme; and (6) writing a report.(Reference Braun and Clarke67)
Three researchers were involved in the thematic analysis. All focus groups were conducted, audio recorded, and transcribed by the principal investigator (CF). Transcripts were then coded individually and independently by the principal investigator and one additional researcher in each country, both of whom were native speakers of the country’s language (KMA, JP). Codes were discussed and agreed upon. Individual interviews from both countries were conducted, audio recorded, transcribed, and then coded only by the principal investigator. Due to resource limitations, individual interviews were not double coded; however, their analysis was conducted after all focus groups were double-coded and the same codes had emerged from the data following coding by the principal investigator.
An inductive approach was used to identify themes and sub-themes(Reference Braun and Clarke67); they emerged directly from the data rather than were fitted into existing or pre-defined schemes(Reference Braun and Clarke67). Codes from focus groups and individual interviews were grouped and used by the principal investigator to generate themes and sub-themes, which were further discussed with an experienced second researcher (KMA). Definitions were created to avoid overlapping between themes and ensure that all codes were assigned to one theme and sub-theme only.
Researchers and reflexivity
All three researchers involved in this study were females. One of them (CF) conducted all focus groups and interviews, was involved in coding all of them, and in generating themes and sub-themes from these codes. The other two researchers were involved in coding focus group transcripts in their native language, English (KMA) or French (JP), to minimize misinterpretation of participants’ statements. All researchers have a background in psychology or nutrition, and this may have had an impact on the coding process. All researchers include dairy products in their diet, but one of the researchers is lactose intolerant. Prior personal experiences and beliefs may also have impacted researchers’ interpretations of what was said during the focus groups and individual interviews and thus have had an impact on the coding process. Double coding and discussion of all codes, themes, and sub-themes aimed to reduce this risk.
Results
Four focus groups and seven individual interviews were conducted between May and September 2022 in both the UK and France, of which two were mixed-gender and the other two were single-gender (one only males and one only females). Focus groups lasted between 60 and 90 minutes, and individual interviews lasted between 20 and 35 minutes.
Sample
A total of forty-five young adults (UK n = 22; France n = 23) took part in this study.
Twenty-two young adults were living in the UK. Fifteen of them (females n = 8) took part in focus groups in Bournemouth, of which eleven were students and four were working at the time of the study. The average age was 22.7 years old. The remaining seven young adults (females n = 6) took part in individual interviews. All of them were employed at the time of the study, and the average age was 28.1 years old.
Twenty-three young adults were living in France. Sixteen of them (females n = 8) took part in focus groups. Seven were students, two were looking for a job at the time of the study, and all the other participants were employed. The average age was 24.1 years old. The remaining seven participants (females n = 6) took part in individual interviews; five were students, one was employed, and one was looking for a job. The average age was 22 years old.
Reasons for dairy consumption
Four themes and sixteen sub-themes were reported to have an impact on participants’ dairy intakes in both the UK and France. A seventeenth sub-theme appeared to influence dairy consumption only in France. All themes and sub-themes designate neutral concepts, as the same idea may be described with a negative or positive valence depending on the participant, product, or topic.
All themes and sub-themes are shown in Fig. 1 and defined in Table 1. All are considered independent and describe the different reasons for dairy (non)consumption identified, but some were also related to other themes or sub-themes, as shown in Fig. 1. As we can make no judgements over the degree of influence using thematic analysis, themes are described in a random order.
Reasons for dairy consumption, themes, and sub-themes. Dotted lines represent a link between themes and/or sub-themes.
Themes (in bold) and sub-themes (in italic) that were reported to impact dairy consumption among young adults in the UK and France
Discussion
Many reasons for the consumption and non-consumption of dairy products among young adults aged between 18 and 30 years old in two different countries were found. These reasons were based on aspects that were product-related, individual-related, based on cultural factors of the country they are living in, or market-related policies. Many of these findings agree with previous studies exploring barriers and facilitators to dairy consumption. For instance, other recent studies reported that product-related factors could influence dairy consumption in the same population, but also in younger and older samples.(Reference Racey, Bransfield and Capello33,Reference Laila, Topakas and Farr39,Reference Lacroix, Desroches and Turcotte68–Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70) Taste, particularly, is a sensory characteristic, that has been found to impact consumption across a range of population groups, and to do so both positively and negatively based on the product type (e.g. milk vs plant-based milk).(Reference Laila, Topakas and Farr39,Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70) The literature suggests that a product’s acceptability starts with its sensory aspects.(Reference Palacios, Badran and Drake71,Reference Cardello, Llobell and Jin72) Participants in similar studies have also discussed product composition,(Reference Lacroix, Desroches and Turcotte68,Reference Jung, Mistry and Bourne69) not only concerning nutritional composition as was found here but also as a barrier to consumption if dairy foods were contaminated.(Reference Jung, Mistry and Bourne69) While some participants taking part in this study declared consuming dairy for their health, none of them discussed contaminated foods. However, the fact that nutritional composition may act as a barrier or facilitator seems to confirm studies showing that nutritional composition may impact food choices.(Reference Oostenbach, Slits and Robinson73,Reference Bimbo74) Another concept debated in the non-sensory sub-theme was the degree of versatility. Participants in both countries mentioned including (or not) dairy in their meals depending on the type of product and its degree of versatility. The more versatile a product, the more it could be used in different contexts or combination with other foods. In both the UK and France, different kinds of soft cheeses particularly, are available with different sensorial and non-sensorial characteristics,(Reference Almena-Aliste and Mietton1) e.g. cream cheese, ricotta, that makes them suitable to be consumed in different contexts of consumption, i.e. in savoury and sweet dishes. Participants reported this as a positive aspect of yoghurts, too, as these products may be eaten or drunk depending on their formats. A recent study exploring facilitators and barriers to dairy consumption among parents of preschool-aged children reported this aspect, as well as another qualitative study conducted among teenagers in Canada.(Reference Racey, Bransfield and Capello33,Reference Laila, Topakas and Farr39) In this sense, some research sectors are already looking for ways to develop products to improve their versatility.(Reference Lad, Aparnathi and Mehta63,Reference Pulina, Milán and Lavín65,Reference Schiano, Harwood and Gerard75) The availability of more versatile products may lead consumers to consider changing their dairy intakes, potentially even appealing to consumers who do not use dairy products already.
Within the individual-related theme, personal preferences, e.g. liking and disliking, were reported to impact dairy consumption and this confirms the current literature.(Reference Recio-Román, Recio-Menéndez and Román-González76) Other individual-related factors have also been reported to impact dairy consumption in populations of different age groups.(Reference Racey, Bransfield and Capello33,Reference Laila, Topakas and Farr39,Reference Rouf, Clayton and Allman-Farinelli48,Reference Lacroix, Desroches and Turcotte68,Reference Deliens, Clarys and De Bourdeaudhuij77) It is interesting to note that while yoghurt seems to be the most appreciated dairy product in this sample, in both the UK and France, most participants seemed to dislike cultured milks, e.g. kefir, labelling them as “disgusting”. However, only a small number of individuals taking part in the study consumed this category of dairy at the time of our research, and only two people volunteered to taste them if the occasion arose, e.g. during a holiday in a country where fermented dairy is considered a traditional food. Studies confirm that experiences and contextual variables, e.g. the setting, can influence food acceptability(Reference King, Meiselman and Hottenstein78) and suggest that personal preferences and product-related aspects, alongside consumers’ familiarity with a product, can influence perceived quality.(Reference Ojeda, Etaio and Valentin2,Reference Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Tajonar and Foggi57) Other studies have also explored mode of consumption, and combining dairy foods with other food categories has been suggested as a strategy to increase dairy consumption.(Reference Laila, Topakas and Farr39,Reference Jung, Mistry and Bourne69) Knowledge, attitudes, and concerns have also been found in previous studies to impact dairy (non)consumption, and depending on consumers’ perspectives, these may become facilitators or barriers.(Reference Racey, Bransfield and Capello33,Reference Lacroix, Desroches and Turcotte68,Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70) Limited knowledge has previously been found as a barrier to consumption, even in the presence of other health consequences.(Reference Rouf, Clayton and Allman-Farinelli48) One of the most debated topics among our sample was whether dairy should or should not be consumed in adulthood for health and/or environmental reasons. While not all participants agreed about the role of dairy in adulthood, some of them described it as unhealthy. In recent studies, while some participants also classified dairy as healthy,(Reference Jung, Mistry and Bourne69,Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70) others agreed that consuming dairy is not healthy or required for humans in adulthood.(Reference Rouf, Clayton and Allman-Farinelli48,Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70) In the current sample, some participants explained that dairy is unnecessary for adult health, and may even be harmful as it is rich in fats, thus high in calories, and this is in line with other similar studies.(Reference Laila, Topakas and Farr39,Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70) This misconception may be related to the fact that for years, dairy products, and particularly whole-fat products, have been considered to negatively impact human health as high intakes of saturated fat are associated with cardiovascular and other metabolic diseases.(Reference Givens20,Reference King, Meiselman and Hottenstein78,Reference Duncan79) However, results from cohort studies have more recently demonstrated a positive impact of dairy consumption on body weight and overall health,(Reference Lovegrove and Givens21,Reference Prentice29,Reference Lovegrove and Hobbs80,Reference Dougkas, Reynolds and Givens81) particularly in the presence of an adequate intake of fermented dairy.(Reference Farag, Jomaa and Abd El-Wahed11,Reference Givens20) Moreover, recent studies highlight the importance of considering dairy as a complex matrix, rather than considering each component e.g. saturated fat, and calcium, individually.(Reference Givens20,Reference King, Meiselman and Hottenstein78,Reference Mozaffarian82) It is interesting to note that some participants stated dairy products should be consumed, but admitted not knowing how much per day and this seems to confirm that although national guidelines advise consuming dairy daily,(28,Reference Lovegrove and Hobbs80,Reference Dougkas, Reynolds and Givens81) recommendations may be misinterpreted.(Reference Leme, Hou, Fisberg, Fisberg and Haines83) For instance, some participants in France reported decreasing their milk consumption to align with national dietary recommendations, and a further reduction in milk consumption is expected in the next few years due to an update of the Nutri-Score algorithm, which downgrades milk from A to B or C depending on the fat content.(Reference Lejeune84) Milk non-consumption for personal reasons included mention of lactose sensitivity or intolerance. While not all adults develop lactose intolerance, some experience digestive complications, diarrhoea, and abdominal pain due to dairy ingestion,(Reference Silanikove, Leitner and Merin85) and this has already been explored as a barrier to consumption.(Reference Rouf, Clayton and Allman-Farinelli48) The potential discomfort may lead young adults to stop consuming milk, even though, for the majority of them, the consumption of small intakes of milk and milk derivates is considered safe.(Reference Silanikove, Leitner and Merin85) Promoting health literacy among young adults is fundamental to allowing them to engage in healthy diets and achieve healthy lifestyles.(Reference Leme, Hou, Fisberg, Fisberg and Haines83,86)
Alongside health concerns, sustainability challenges were also discussed. Participants wondered if dairy products are environmentally and animal-friendly, and often stated that animal-based products can only be harmful to the ecosystem. A transition to a more environmentally friendly diet is needed, and participants seemed curious about new plant-based dairy alternatives. Several participants reported deliberately decreasing their milk consumption in favour of plant-based milk drinks, for environmental reasons, although yoghurt and cheese consumption was unaffected as participants seemed to find it hard to give up their favourite dairy foods. Recent studies have investigated the transition from animal-based dairy consumption to plant-based dairy alternatives,(Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70,Reference Drigon, Nicolle and Guyomarc87,Reference Guyomarc’h, Arvisenet and Bouhallab88) exploring not only new products and perceived sensory characteristics but also attitudes toward sustainability.(Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70,Reference Drigon, Nicolle and Guyomarc87,Reference Guyomarc’h, Arvisenet and Bouhallab88) An increasing number of consumers direct their attention to plant-based dairy alternatives(Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70) and justify their reduced dairy consumption with reasons related to environmental concerns and animal welfare.(Reference Brščić89) However, studies exploring reasons for dairy (non)consumption showed that environmental issues are still not the main reasons that lead consumers to switch from animal-based to plant-based dairy foods as the strongest drivers remain related to pleasure and convenience.(Reference Racey, Bransfield and Capello33,Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70,Reference Varela, Arvisenet and Gonera90) Participants also debated about the duality of consuming dairy for health vs consuming it for pleasure (needs or cravings), particularly on occasions of indulgence, even when participants felt they would likely experience negative bodily symptoms. This sub-theme has also been found to impact dairy consumption among Canadian teenagers, who debated about control and self-efficacy.(Reference Racey, Bransfield and Capello33) Studies suggest that dairy, as with other food products, may be consumed as comfort foods to treat or reward when celebrating or to aid in coping with negative emotions, sometimes until feeling guilty or sick.(Reference Locher, Yoels and Maurer91–Reference Finch and Tomiyama93)
In the theme cultural aspects, culture and traditions were found to have roles as barriers and facilitators to consumption. Consumers in different countries were found to describe foods differently, even when they are all in the same food category. Some participants reported that they do not think about all dairy foods in the same way, particularly they referred to some products as fake dairy, e.g. vegan cheese, Laughing Cow® (Groupe Bel, Leitchfield, USA); the majority of them also seemed to perceive fermented dairy and cultured milks as a different group of products when compared to yoghurt, even if the bacteria used for fermentation are often the same and the production processes are similar.(Reference Yuzbashian, Asghari and Mirmiran10,Reference Savaiano and Hutkins19) Some participants also referred to dairy foods as products that were different from meat, eggs, and tofu, which makes dairy products unsuitable for substitution with other protein-rich foods within a meal. Another study exploring cross-cultural aspects of the meal and comparing France to Norway found that among French participants dairy is not considered as part of the protein group with meat and fish, but interestingly plant-based milks are included in milks group.(Reference Varela, Arvisenet and Gonera90) The categorization of dairy products as a different food group has previously been investigated, as people tend to classify food based on origin and production,(Reference Varela, Arvisenet and Gonera90,Reference Chollet, Sénécal and Woelki94) but studies suggest that cultural mechanisms could have a strong impact on the categorization process.(Reference Rozin, Kurzer and Cohen56,Reference Larson and Story95) As with this sample, other studies have found social influences to have a role in encouraging dairy (non)consumption, whatever the age of the sample.(Reference Rouf, Clayton and Allman-Farinelli48,Reference Lacroix, Desroches and Turcotte68,Reference Jung, Mistry and Bourne69,Reference Cardello, Llobell and Jin72,Reference Deliens, Clarys and De Bourdeaudhuij77) Interactions with family members, peers, and co-workers were reported to impact food choices,(Reference Larson and Story95) and the sub-theme ‘use’ refers to all contexts of consumption that are directly impacted by culture(Reference Merlino, Renna and Nery54); these being different between the UK and France. Contexts of consumption depend notably on the individual,(Reference Ojeda, Etaio and Valentin2,Reference Deliens, Deforche and De Bourdeaudhuij38) but it is well known that food plays a role in a more complex social system and that customs, religion, and norms may impact not only when participants eat a certain food but also how.(Reference Cruwys, Bevelander and Hermans96) The structure of the meal sub-theme was reported to influence dairy consumption only in France. This sub-theme may reflect a cross-cultural difference. Anecdotally, France and other Mediterranean countries like Italy, seem to have more structured meal patterns in which cheese can be a snack or part of a meal, but it is mostly consumed at the end of the main meal, i.e. lunch, dinner.(Reference Volatier97) These countries have a long tradition of dairy farming, and each product seems to have its own place on the menu: within the meal, in combination with other foods, or at the end of the meal.(Reference Delfosse98) For instance, eating cheese is a very traditional element of French meals,(Reference Varela, Arvisenet and Gonera90) particularly at the end of dinner, and pairing it with wine or jam seems part of French food culture,(Reference Visser99) whereas, in other food cultures, cheese may be consumed at other times of the day, e.g. at breakfast in Scandinavian countries.(Reference Holm, Skov Luridsen and Gronow100,Reference Fagt, Matthiessen and Thyregod101) This may be affected by the traditional service à la française, a way to structure the meal that was popular in France in the eighteenth century, where at the end of the meal, diners would cleanse their palates by eating cheeses.(Reference Visser99,Reference Gray102,Reference Harding103)
Availability has previously been reported to impact food choice,(Reference Merlino, Renna and Nery54,Reference Larson and Story95) and some participants reported always buying foods from the same store when available. However, if it was not available, they would not go to another store just to buy that specific product. Other studies also demonstrate this impact on consumption of availability.(Reference Jung, Mistry and Bourne69,Reference Deliens, Clarys and De Bourdeaudhuij77,Reference Drigon, Nicolle and Guyomarc87,Reference Paul, Kumar and Kumar104) Alongside availability, the concept of value for money was discussed as the money used to buy a product and the value of a product, for instance, in terms of quality or convenience, e.g. products sold in bigger quantities. Participants reported that they may consider increasing or reducing their dairy intakes based on market prices, and while some would not sacrifice quality over price, many participants reported not buying organic or local dairy because the ratio of price/quantity was too high. Other studies have found that cost could act as a barrier to consumption, for both dairy and plant-based dairy alternatives among different age groups in different countries.(Reference Lacroix, Desroches and Turcotte68–Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70,Reference Deliens, Clarys and De Bourdeaudhuij77,Reference Varela, Arvisenet and Gonera90) However, a recent study suggests that diets rich in certain dairy foods, i.e. milk, cheese, fromage frais, and yoghurt, provide enhanced nutrition and are less expensive than diets that are lower in dairy.(Reference Hobbs, Durrant and Elliott18) In this sense, increasing dairy consumption could benefit consumers sensitive to improving their health while spending less money. Moreover, participants seemed more likely to buy a product when it was sold in small portions. They stated that dairy products were often sold in portions that were too big or with a short shelf-life, which may lead to food waste. Shelf life was reported as a barrier to consumption in other previous studies as well as the other market-related sub-themes.(Reference Lacroix, Desroches and Turcotte68–Reference Adamczyk, Jaworska and Affeltowicz70) Pack size indeed has a role in household waste,(Reference Reynolds16) and wasting food also impacts GHG emissions and food insecurity.(Reference Brennan, Francis and Jenkins105) New packaging from biodegradable materials(Reference Galić, Božanić and Lisak Jakopović106) could be combined with smaller pack sizes, which are easily available and sold at affordable prices(Reference Reynolds16) to permit consumers to buy the quantity they need, thus reducing the risk of waste.
The comparison of the two countries in our study provided some interesting observations. Our findings mostly agree with previous studies conducted on facilitators and barriers to dairy consumption in other countries among different age groups, but the discussion of a range of dairy products and the direct comparison of the UK and France led to the emergence of some topics that may not otherwise have materialised. However, the number of participants in the study was limited, and further investigations in larger samples are necessary. Moreover, dairy intakes were not recorded for any of the participants, and these could have helped assess direct links between knowledge, the interpretation of recommendations, and intakes. Lastly, the sub-theme structure of the meal was reported only by participants in France, but it may be the case that participants in the UK did not report it as they did not consider this an important factor in defining their dairy consumption. Studying a larger sample, e.g. through a population-wide questionnaire, would help address some of these concerns.
Some strategies for increasing healthy dairy intakes can be suggested from our findings. Better practical communication for young adults may facilitate intakes as limited knowledge and some misunderstanding was found, as well as a labelling system that gives clear information about recommended portion sizes, and promoting tools that may lead young adults to acquire confidence in using dairy, e.g. cooking-related skills. Despite the small number of participants, many in our sample seemed interested in reducing food waste or their impact on the environment, but market offers did not always seem to be aligned with their needs. The consideration by retailers to expand the availability of a variety of dairy products in assorted portion sizes may encourage households of different sizes to consume more dairy foods.
Conclusion
Four themes and seventeen sub-themes were found to influence dairy consumption in young adults, both students and non-students, aged between 18 and 30 years old, in the UK and France. ‘Product-related’, ‘individual-related’, ‘cultural aspects’, and ‘market offering’ themes were reported to impact consumption in both countries, although the sub-theme ‘structure of the meal’ was only reported in France. With the exception of this specific aspect of consumption, our results suggest that reasons for consumption and non-consumption of dairy products are similar in young adults in the UK and France.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2024.78
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request of the corresponding author.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank all participants who agreed to take part in focus groups and individual interviews in the UK and France.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, K.M.A. and C.F.; methodology, K.M.A, C.F.; investigation, C.F.; analysis, C.F, K.M.A., J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, C.F.; writing—review and editing, K.M.A., A.D., J.M., J.P., C.F.; supervision, K.M.A., A.D., J.M.; funding acquisition, K.M.A., A.D., J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Financial support
This research was funded by Bournemouth University, UK; the Institut Lyfe Research Center, formerly Institut Paul Bocuse Research Center, France, and Danone S.A., and was completed as part of a PhD studentship undertaken by C.F. and supervised by A.D., J. M., and K.M.A. Danone S.A. had no role in the development of the protocol, design, analysis or writing of this article.
Declaration of interests
This work was partly 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.
Open access
