Sunday New York Times Magazine, October 6, 2002.
THE MILK LETTER : A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS
Robert M. Kradjian, MD
Breast Surgery Chief Division of General
Surgery,
Seton Medical Centre #302 - 1800 Sullivan
Ave.
Daly City, CA 94015 USA
"MILK"
Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a nice cup of hot
milk?" The last time you heard that question it was from someone who cared
for you--and you appreciated their effort. The entire matter of food and
especially that of milk is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance.
Milk was our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our mother's milk. A
loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother's
milk it was cow's milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat,
camel or water buffalo milk.
Now, we are a
nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents,
adults and even the aged. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a
year and add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese,
butter, and yogurt.
Can there be
anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of healthy, beautiful people
on our television screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is
good for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to have
milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School lunches always include
milk and nearly every hospital meal will have milk added. And if that isn't
enough, our nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up an
"essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that colourful
charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other essential nutrients were
made available at no cost
for schools.
Cow's milk became "normal."
You may be
surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on planet Earth
today do not drink or use cow's milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk
because it makes them ill.
There are
students of human nutrition who are not supportive of milk use for adults. Here
is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader:
If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to
join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating
dairy products from their diets altogether. Although this
sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five
basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all
the mammals, only humans--and then only a minority,
principally Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond
babyhood. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans--and
then only a minority, principally Caucasians--
continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.
Who is right? Why
the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can we trust milk industry
spokesmen? Can you trust any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date
or are they simply repeating what their professors learned years ago? What
about the new voices urging caution?
I believe that
there are three reliable sources of information. The first, and probably the
best, is a study of nature. The second is to study the history of our own
species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific literature on the
subject of milk.
Let's look at the
scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles
dealing with milk recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of these
had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific
information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding
articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and
inconclusive studies.
How would I
summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of
all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side
effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to believe by the industry.
The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic,
intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in
infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is
the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as
well as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and
white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also
discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar
infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood
diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and
arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,
lymphoma and cancer.
I think that an
answer can also be found in a consideration of what occurs in nature & what
happens with free living mammals and what happens with human groups living in
close to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.
Our paleolithic
ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to study. Here we are
limited to
speculation and
indirect evidences, but the bony remains available for our study are
remarkable. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect
great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),
and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people
are not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are
programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of
50,000 to 100,000 years ago.
WHAT IS MILK?
Milk is a
maternal lactating secretion, a short-term nutrient for newborns. Nothing more,
nothing less. Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a
short period of time immediately after birth. When the time comes for
'weaning', the young offspring is introduced to the proper food for that
species of mammal. A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the
pup for just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to
eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of
mammals. Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state to
continue with the drinking of milk after weaning.
IS ALL MILK THE
SAME?
Then there is the
matter of where we get our milk. We have settled on the cow because of its
docile nature, its size, and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice
seems 'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it
natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal?
Consider for a
moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow,
let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking.
Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm not
serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants,
dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves, cats' milk is for kittens,
and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own
good judgment on this one.
Milk is not just
milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored
to the requirements of that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer
in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven
times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty
acids when compared to human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times
as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. (Incidentally,
skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It simply is not designed for humans.
Food is not just
food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the proper amount of food but
the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health
and growth. Biochemists and physiologists - and rarely medical doctors - are
gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a
particular species to develop its unique specializations.
Clearly, our
specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate
neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or
huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands
make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's hoof. Human newborns
specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.
Can mother's milk
increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in
Lancet during 1992
(Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature
infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group
received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These
children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human
milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn't the
correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a
positive effect?
In the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound
neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The
fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential fatty
acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids
the neurological disorders cleared.
In the same
journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found
exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.
In 1930 Dr. G.O.
Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies
created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s
pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas without the same
linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of the acid to the
formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk
is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.
WELL, AT LEAST
COW'S MILK IS PURE
Or is it? Fifty
years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of milk per year. Today the top
producers give 50,000 pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics,
hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding; that's how.
The latest
high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth hormone or BGH. This
genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk production but,
according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the milk or
meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American
Cyanamid Company. Obviously,
there have been
no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinking the milk.
Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems
with adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules usually come
out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but I don't want to experiment with
the ingestion of a growth hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked
increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then, requires antibiotic
therapy, and the residues of the antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that
the public is uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that
growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk. A vice president for
public policy at Monsanto was opposed to labelling for that reason, and because
the labelling would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is awash
with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can consume. Let's not create
storage costs and further taxpayer burdens, because the law requires the USDA
to buy any surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price
set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter,
and one billion dollars a year on average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer
Reports, May 1992:
330-32).
Any lactating
mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This includes antibiotics, pesticides,
chemicals and hormones. Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are
simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be horrified to learn
that the USDA allows milk to contain from one to one and a half million white
blood cells per millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't
already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to describe white
cells where they don't belong would be to call them pus cells. To get to the
point, is milk pure or is it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail?
Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The United
States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the FDA and the individual
States are failing to protect the public from drug residues in milk.
Authorities test for only 4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.
As you can
imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman claims it's perfectly safe.
Jerome Kozak says, "I still think that milk is the safest product we
have."
Other, perhaps
less biased observers, have found the following: 38% of milk samples in 10
cities were contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This from the Centre
for Science in the Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC found
a 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).
What's going on
here? When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, they used
very lax standards. When they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51
percent of the milk samples showed drug traces.
Let's focus in on
this because it's critical to our understanding of the apparent discrepancies.
The FDA uses a disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so drugs
found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A more
powerful test called the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per
billion.
One nasty subject
must be discussed. It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the
udder that require ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us
that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears in the milk for
from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells
of cells in 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate
analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow cytometric
analysis, and a great deal of high tech stuff. Do you know what the conclusion
was? If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, itÕs in the study,
all concealed with language such as "macrophages containing many vacuoles
and phagocytosed particles," etc.
IT GETS WORSE
Well, at least
human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge study showed that human breast milk
in over 14,000 women had contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that
the sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it--dairy products.
Well, why not? These pesticides are concentrated in fat and that's what's in
these products. (Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had
only half the levels of contamination).
A recent report
showed an increased concentration of pesticides in the breast tissue of women
with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic
disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature describe problems.
Just scan these titles:
1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437
2.Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J.
Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906
3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women's
Milk, J. Immunology 19
(1930): 15
There are many
others. There are dozens of studies describing the prompt appearance of cows'
milk allergy in children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk allergens
simply appear in the mother's milk and are transmitted to the infant.
A committee on
nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the use of whole
cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why
bovine milk should be used before the first birthday, yet continued to
recommend its use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department
of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of acute
gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal
pain, milk-borne infections and contaminants, and said:
Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of uncertainty
about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine
milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until
the answers are available.
Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to
an end?
In the same issue
of Pediatrics he
further commented:
It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant
in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency
anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink an
impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointestinal
bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.
I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be
consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its
contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other
diseases.
In late 1992 Dr.
Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in history, shocked the
country when he articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for the
first two years of life. Here is his quotation:
I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from the
carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for
babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-fed
infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found
such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it will probably
never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved.
OTHER PROBLEMS
Let's just
mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, and
staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis
was a major problem and some folks want to go back to those times by insisting
on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This is insanity! A
study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of salmonella infection
in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive
good old brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More about that
later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is still consumed there have been
outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American Medical
Association (251: 483,
1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia
enterocolitica in
pasteurised whole milk. This is despite safety precautions.
All parents dread
juvenile diabetes for their children. A Canadian study reported in the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive correlation
between consumption of unfermented milk protein and incidence of insulin
dependent diabetes mellitus in data from various countries. Conversely a
possible negative relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3
months and diabetes risk.".
Another study
from Finland found that diabetic children had higher levels of serum antibodies
to cows' milk (Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from this study:
We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption is
altered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or, their
immunological reactivity to proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the
permeability of their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than normal.
The April 18,
1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study contrasting the difference in incidence
of juvenile insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated
to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English group
compared to children remaining in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant
increase? The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great
Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk,
sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England? That a grocery store
in England has the same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe
that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about adult onset, type II
diabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to diet as well as to a
genetic predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all
in your
genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered to be genetic or
possibly viral, but now this? So resistant are we to consider diet as causation
that the authors of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in
England altered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes! The
first two authors had the same reluctance top admit the obvious: the milk just
may have had something to do with the disease.
The latest in
this remarkable list of reports, a New England Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), was also
reported in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto
and from Finnish researchers. In Finland there is "...the world's highest
rate of dairy product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin
dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000
there contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States....
Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the
researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called
auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic makeup leaves
them vulnerable." "...142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed
diabetes. They found that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies
against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear evidence that the
children had a raging auto immune disorder." The team has now expanded the
study to 400 children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive
no dairy products during the first nine months of life. "The study may
take 10 years, but we'll get a definitive answer one way or the other,"
according to one of the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that
the breastfeeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or the results will
be confounded by the transmission of the cows' milk protein in the mother's
breast milk.... Now what was the reaction from the diabetes association? This
is very interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the association
says: "It does not mean that children should stop drinking milk or that
parents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of
good protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein"
that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy industry may have helped
the American Diabetes Association in the past?
LEUKEMIA?
LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORSTÑBRACE YOURSELF!
I hate to tell
you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is found in more than three of five
dairy cows in the United States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds.
Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage of all milk
produced is contaminated (90 to 95%). Of course the virus is killed in
pasteurisation--if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk is
raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples the bovine leukemia
virus was recovered from two-thirds. I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds
are carefully monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014).
This is a
world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and
admitted the impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the
rest of the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and
Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from their
herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight against
leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We are the worst in the world with the
former exception of Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist
who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master's degree in
Public Health.
As mentioned, the
leukemia virus is rendered inactive by pasteurisation. Of course. However,
there can be Chernobyl- like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago
area in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental
"cross connection" between raw and pasteurized milk occurred. A violent
salmonella outbreak followed, killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill.
Now the question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this: "How
can you assure the people who drank this milk that they were not exposed to the
ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?"
Further, it would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia
cases blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports of
"leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in the June 10,
1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern California.
What happens to
other species of mammals when they are exposed to the bovine leukemia virus?
It's a fair question and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals
exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep, ingestion (both
intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in milk. There are obviously
no instances of transfer attempts to human beings, but we know that the virus
can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody formation
to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia
virus particles gain access to humans and become antigens? Was it as small,
denatured particles?
If the bovine
leukemia viruses cause human leukemia, we could expect the dairy states with
known leukemic herds to have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so?
Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota
and Wisconsin have statistically higher incidence of leukemia than the national
average. In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus
have been linked with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that
veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers
have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes
from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by passing
directly through the intestinal wall.
An optimistic
note from the University of Illinois, Urbana, from the Department of Animal
Sciences shows the importance of one's perspective. Since they are concerned
with the economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they noted
that the production of milk was greater in the cows with the bovine leukemia
virus. However when the leukemia produced a persistent and significant
lymphocytosis (increased white blood cell count), the production fell off. They
suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of bovine leukemia
virus infection on the dairy industry". Does this mean that leukemia is
good for profits only if we can keep it under control? You can get the details
on this business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added emphasis and am
insulted that a university department feels that this is an economic and not a
human health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or
the universities. The money stakes and the political pressures are too great.
You're on you own.
What does this
all mean? We know that virus is capable of producing leukemia in other animals.
Is it proven that it can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related
cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:
1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human
Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980):80
2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014
3.Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30
4.Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding
the Normal Infant.
75:182-186; 1985
In Norway, 1422
individuals were followed for 11 and a half years. Those drinking 2 or more
glasses of milk per day had 3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic
organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.
One of the more
thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown,
New York. Writing in the Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled,
"Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many people think of milk
as "liquid meat" and Dr. Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the
beef and dairy consumption in terms of grams per day for a one year period,
1955-1956., in 15 countries. New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest
in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The
difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day
for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold difference!
(Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increase in the
amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting
this, confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in migration studies.
Formerly the increase in frequency of lymphomas in Japanese people was only in
those who moved to the USA)!
An interesting
bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the Gyokusenji Temple in
Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the first cow was killed in Japan
for human consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift from the US
Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The year?
1930.
Cunningham found
a highly significant positive correlation between deaths from lymphomas and
beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from
his article follow:
The average intake of protein in many countries is far in
excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive consumption of animal protein
may be one co-factor in the causation of lymphomas by acting in the following
manner. Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of antigenic
fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous membrane.
This results in
chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to which these fragments gain access
"Chronic immunological stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals
and is believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The gastrointestinal
mucous membrane is only a partial barrier to the absorption of food antigens,
and circulating antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent
lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized
lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has
been conservatively estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released
by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production of all antibody
classes [This may explain why pasteurized, killed viruses are still antigenic
and can still cause disease.
Here's more. A
large prospective study from Norway was reported in the British Journal of
Cancer 61 (3):456-9,
March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years).
For most cancers there was no association between the tumour and milk
ingestion. However, in lymphoma, there was a strong positive association. If
one drank two glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products), the
odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking less than one glass of
developing a lymphoma.
There are two
other cow-related diseases that you should be aware of. At this time they are
not known to be spread by the use of dairy products and are not known to
involve man. The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the
second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first of these diseases,
we hope, is confined to England and causes cavities in the animal's brain.
Sheep have long been known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to
have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep parts, especially
brains, to the British cows. Now, use your good sense. Do cows seem like
carnivores? Should they eat meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and
bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain. The
disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent
incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in
keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are reported as infected
each month. The British public is concerned and has dropped its beef
consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef
to children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease syndrome that
resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-Disease). But the British
Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."
The USDA agrees
that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of cattle with bone meal or
animal protein produced at rendering plants from the carcasses of
scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle and
zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the disease does not exist in
the United States. However, there may be a problem. "Downer cows" are
animals that arrive at auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled,
lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to walk.
Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by
walking, they are dragged by chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering
plants where, if they are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane"
death is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein food for
animals as well as other preparations. Minks that have been fed this protein
have developed a fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire
colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in Wisconsin. It
is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained
from the ill "downer cows."
The British
Medical Journal in an
editorial whimsically entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-30) describes
cases of BSE in species not previously known to be affected, such as cats. They
admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered
the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They say. "The
result of this experiment is awaited." As the incubation period can be up
to three decades, wait we must.
The
immunodeficiency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and is more
worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the human AIDS virus. At
this time we do not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the sera
of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the virus among American
herds is said to be "widespread". (The USDA refuses to inspect the
meat and milk to see if antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has
no plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of humans with
AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day we consume beef and diary
products from cows infected with these viruses and no scientific assurance
exists that the products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare) strikes me as being very risky,
especially after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993.
A report in the Canadian
Journal of Veterinary Research, October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian
literature, tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection
in human serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In
addition to this disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the
presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia virus in 5 of 89
women with breast disease (Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34 (1):19-26). The implications
of these developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to assume
that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in the animal
kingdom.
OTHER
CANCERSÑDOES IT GET WORSE?
Unfortunately it
does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was associated with milk
consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.
Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a
3.1 times risk over non-milk users. They felt that the reduced fat milk
products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by
numerous investigators.
Another important
study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed data from 27 countries
mainly from the 1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed
between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators
feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the
digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest
the lactose (lactase persistence)Ña little different emphasis, but the same conclusion.
This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles
come from two of the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.
Even lung cancer
has been associated with milk ingestion. The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer
patients and 569 controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the International
Journal of Cancer, April
15, 1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold
increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole milk.
For many years we
have been watching the lung cancer rates for Japanese men who smoke far more
than American or European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in
this research area feel that the total fat intake is the difference.
There are not
many reports studying an association between milk ingestion and prostate
cancer. One such report though was of great interest. This is from the Roswell
Park Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989. They analyzed the
diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and comparable control subjects: Men who
reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had a relative risk
of 2.49 compared with men who reported never drinking whole milk the weight of
the evidence appears to favor the hypothesis that animal fat is related to
increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common
cancer diagnosed in US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.
WELL, WHAT ARE
THE BENEFITS?
Is there any
health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows' milk?
It's hard for me
to come up with even one good reason other than simple preference. But if you
try hard, in my opinion, these would be the best two: milk is a source of
calcium and it's a source of amino acids (proteins).
Let's look at the
calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about calcium? Obviously, we intend
it to build strong bones and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt
about it, milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source for
humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products
actually interfere with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein
that the milk provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr.
Hegsted in England has been writing for years about the geographical
distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest
intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis.
He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below.
Numerous studies
have shown that the level of calcium ingestion and especially calcium
supplementation has no effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The
most important such article appeared recently in the British Journal of
Medicine where the long
arm of our dairy industry can't reach. Another study in the United States
actually showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given
three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day. (Am. Journal of Clin Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender,
weight bearing on the axial bones, and in particular protein intake, are
critically important. Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is
to note the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among
people living on a natural diet without milk.
For the key to
the osteoporosis riddle, don't look at calcium, look at protein. Consider these
two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake
estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake
at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other
instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent
protein diet, mostly plant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium,
about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite
bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When
African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The
answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there
is a genetic difference that is modified by diet.
To answer the
obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?" The answer
is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green
things that grow in the ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all,
elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating
green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely
without leafy plants. It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live
in harmony with their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living
an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.
If animal
references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this
earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be
prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth
is exactly the opposite. They have far less than that seen in the countries
where dairy products are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,
but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive
protein intakes and lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place
over decades.
Hormones play a
secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a deterrent to good bone
health.
THE PROTEIN MYTH
Remember when you
were a kid and the adults all told you to "make sure you get plenty of
good protein". Protein was the nutritional "good guy"" when
I was young. And of course milk is fitted right in.
As regards
protein, milk is indeed a rich source of proteinÑ"liquid meat,"
remember? However that isn't necessarily what we need. In actual fact it is a
source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.
For this
information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am aware of. This
is the latest edition (10th, 1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended
Dietary Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of interest, the
current editor of this important work is Dr. Richard Havel of the University of
California in San Francisco.
First to be noted
is that the recommended protein has been steadily revised downward in
successive editions. The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults
19 through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical
60 kilogram adult. You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for
protein in adults to by .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large
safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add some more to
"be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams a day if
necessary!
Now 45 grams a
day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an ounce and a half! Consider too, that
the protein does not have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical
for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly less saturated
fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must be
carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)
Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and European people are
in a protein-overloaded state. This has serious consequences when maintained
over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,
atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain
malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat intake.
Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to fully point out
the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers of the fat and
cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should know that the protein content
of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.
IS THAT ALL OF
THE TROUBLE?
Sorry, there's
more. Remember lactose? This is the principal carbohydrate of milk. It seems
that nature provides newborns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize
lactose, but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.
What is the
problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a disaccharide which is
too large to be absorbed into the blood stream without first being broken down
into monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires the presence
of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes to break down the galactose into
glucose.
Let's think about
his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few
years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us
something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact that so many adults
cannot seems to be related to the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms
that are not needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose-intolerant.
It was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and the
ability to "borrow" milk from another group of mammals that the
survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest
lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk?
After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And
further, why was it just the white or light skinned humans who retained this
knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it?
Some students of
evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent innovation, perhaps not more
than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward
migration of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins and
clothing became available. Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from
sunlight more readily than does dark skin. However, when only the face was
exposed to sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide the
vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available,
the ability to use the abundant calcium in cows' milk would give a survival
advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only
logical explanation for fair-skinned humans having a high degree of lactose
tolerance when compared to dark skinned people.
How does this
break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to 90% lactose
intolerant as adults. Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals
are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are
the results of substantial milk intake in such persons. Most American Indians
cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays
intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A lactose-intolerance
industry has sprung up and had sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)
What if you are
lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is all lost? Not at all. It
seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to
enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar in this
respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to
splice genes to alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993Suppl 302s).
One could quibble
and say that milk is totally devoid of fiber content and that its habitual use
will predispose to constipation and bowel disorders.
The association
with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all
physicians. This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities
for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with articles
describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as
well as colic, diarrhea and vomiting in cows' milk-sensitive babies. The anemia
gets a double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in
the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of childhood allergy.
LOW FAT
One additional
topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common and sincere question
is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't it?" The answer to this question
is that low fat milk isn't low fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing
term used to gull the public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as
calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to weight. They don't
tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87% water!
"Well, then,
kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fatmilk!" I hear this quite a bit.
(Another constant concern is: "What do you put on your cereal?")
True, there is little or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of
protein and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more of it is
another simple sugarÑlactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of
Americans are lactose intolerant to boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated
earlier, we live in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we
need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominent
cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest soy
milk, rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still
concerned about calcium, Westsoy is formulated to have the same calcium concentration as milk.
SUMMARY
To my thinking,
there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk products. That is just
because we simply want to. Because we like it and because it has become a part
of our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste and texture.
Because we like the way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the
very best they could for us and provided milk in our earliest training and
conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably the very best reason
is ice cream! I've heard it described "to die for".
I had one patient
who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he
didn't eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health-promoting
one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of
the richest would be a lean day's ration for him. On many occasions he would
eat an entire quartÑand yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good
ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some
expected "middle age spread" when he had a devastating stroke which
left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and
died several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit.
Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.
So don't drink
milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the scientific evidence that
it does not "do a body good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your
diet's nutritional value and safety.
Most of the
people on this planet live very healthfully without cows' milk. You can too.
It will be
difficult to change; we've been conditioned since childhood to think of milk as
"nature's most perfect food." I'll guarantee you that it will be
safe, improve your health and it won't cost anything. What can you lose?
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com
THE NOTMILK
NEWSLETTER:
SUBSCRIBE:send an
empty Email to notmilk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Forward this
message to your milk-drinking friends:
MILK from A to Z:
http://www.notmilk.com/milkatoz.html
2O QUESTIONS: http://www.notmilk.com/notmilkfaq.html
What is an
excellent alternative for NOTMILK?
http://www.soytoy.comÑmake your own grain milks!
SoyToy recipes
forum: soytoy-subscribe@yahoogroups.com