Chemical Composition, Biological Activities and Human Health Evidence of Camel Milk: A Critical Narrative Review and Future Perspectives
Abhayraj Joshi *
Department of Dairy and Food Chemistry, College of Dairy and Food Technology, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, India.
Arun Kumar
Department of Dairy and Food Chemistry, College of Dairy and Food Technology, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, India.
Prateek
Department of Dairy and Food Chemistry, College of Dairy and Food Technology, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, India.
Rakesh Choudhary
Department of Dairy and Food Chemistry, College of Dairy and Food Technology, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, India.
Shalabh Goel
National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management (NIFTEM), Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Camel milk has moved from a regionally important pastoral food to an internationally marketed product promoted for nutritional and therapeutic properties. This critical narrative review evaluates its chemical composition, biological activities, human health evidence, processing constraints, safety, and research priorities. Literature published from 1 January 2000 to 13 July 2026 was considered, with earlier seminal studies retained when essential for mechanism or historical context. The evidence indicates that camel milk has a broadly bovine-like macronutrient profile but a distinctive protein architecture, including absence of β-lactoglobulin, relatively low κ-casein, and appreciable lactoferrin, immunoglobulins and other protective proteins. Vitamins, minerals, fatty acids and oligosaccharides are potentially important, but concentrations vary substantially with species, breed, season, lactation, feeding, geography and analytical method. Antimicrobial, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, enzyme-inhibitory and insulin-receptor-related activities are supported mainly by biochemical, cellular and animal studies; these findings establish biological plausibility rather than therapeutic efficacy. Human evidence is strongest, although still limited, for adjunctive glycaemic effects in diabetes. Small trials and a meta-analysis suggest reductions in glycated haemoglobin or insulin requirement in some settings, but marked heterogeneity, small samples and intervention variability constrain certainty. Evidence for cow’s-milk protein allergy is encouraging in selected patients but cannot support universal hypoallergenicity because camel-milk allergy and anaphylaxis occur. Evidence for lactose intolerance is preliminary, while current randomised evidence does not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in core autism symptoms. Processing is a central translational issue: heating can alter heat-sensitive proteins, yet raw milk poses avoidable microbiological and zoonotic risks. The most defensible view is therefore that camel milk is a nutritionally valuable dairy food with a promising bioactive matrix, not a validated treatment for multiple diseases. Progress requires standardised composition reporting, mechanistically linked human trials, bioavailability studies, safe processing, and product-specific quality standards.
Keywords: Camelus dromedarius, bioactive peptides, lactoferrin, glycaemic control, milk allergy, fermentation, food safety, functional foods