Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....?

"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.





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


theses 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 %26amp; 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 new-borns. 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


judgement 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 new-borns 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 itÂ’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, itÂ’s 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 gastrointiestinal


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 cowsÂ’ 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), 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


breast feeding 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 WORST--BRACE 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


per cent). 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,


goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and


chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes 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 causes 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, Ubana


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 bonemeal 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 who 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 immunodeficency 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 CANCERS--DOES 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 (lactose persistence) - a 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 favour 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. H


egsted 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, donÂ’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 p lant 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 protein-


-"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 (1oth,


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 new-


borns 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 1993 Suppl 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-fat


milk!" 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 sugar-lactose, 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 didnÂ’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 quart -


and 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 d ied 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?

Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....?
wow. Looks like you had allot of thought to this. My thoughts to this. People have been drinking milk for positively centuries and millenia. If you like it, drink it. If you don't, don't.
Reply:Well its a good source of calcium for rebuilding bones. But since you're no longer growing adults should only have around a cup a day max. I would say children certainly should drink plenty of milk to help their bones grow. Report It

Reply:Zomg I'm not reading that Report It

Reply:if that is your picture you'll probably commit suicide
Reply:Excellent essay. is that your writing or are you quoting someone? If it's the latter can you provide a citation or link to where you found it? I'd like to keep that in my personal folder of veg resources.





On another note: How come every time I try to post a long question it tells me I'm out of room?
Reply:Wow that was long. I used to drink milk when I was a kid and I would always be coughing, getting ear infection, my thoat would hurt and the list goes on. All of that went away when I stopped drinking milk. I'm gonna star your "question" because I really liked it and it is so important.


How where you able to post such a long question? I don't think I can do that.
Reply:No antibiotics are allowed in milk for human consumption. None.


Not low levels, NONE.


Milk is checked many many times before it reaches the table.


So if you are against it, don't drink it! Why worry about what we are doing? It's our choice!


Oh, and don't cook your food either.


By the way, did you know that ants milk aphids? Is that unnatural too?
Reply:I only read half of this before I got a little bored, sorry. Some of your references are wrong though, be sure to make the noninsignificant differentiation between BGH, a naturally occuring hormone that cows produce in order to produce milk, and rBGH or recombinant bovine growth hormone, the lab-produced hormone that is injected into cows in order to increase their milk production. Oh, and people drink goat's milk and sheep's milk, too, and have for thousands of years. There are probably other animals that are milked, too. Also, I've seen adult cats and dogs drink milk, actually knocking the top off of the colostrum milk container in the barn so they can reach the milk. It was almost really good, but your sources weren't all exactly on. If you're turning that in for credit, you might want to double check those.
Reply:Who wrote this? You don't credit it, but it wasn't you; it says 'I had one patient who...'. You say elsewhere that you're 17.





I'm a vegan, but this essay has pissed me off. It is reproduced in shortened form inthe Cancer forum, titled 'Breast cancer and dairy???????' The text doesn't mention breast cancer, though.





Users of the Cancer forum are very used to people, often teenagers as here but always people who haven't had or studied cancer, posting their half-baked theories about what causes cancer and lecturing us on how to avoid or cure it.
Reply:I drink organic milk. All milk is taken from cows that have been given the bovine growth horomones. These horomones make the cows have boils on the insides of their udders %26amp; sometimes they pop %26amp; leak pus into the milk. So unless you buy milk that says 'not treated by cows w/ bovine growth horomones' you are drinking up to 45% pus.





go organic
Reply:And The Question Is?
Reply:I know more about milk than most people. I used to milk cows for a living as a young person. Then I was a pasteurisor in a dairy. Prior to that I went to agricultural college, but with respect, I haven´t time to read your "very" long question.


Milk is very good for you. Semi skimmed is better for dietary concerns, but above all it is the best way to get the necessary calcium your body needs.
Reply:I couldn't make it all the way through your dribble.





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Milk is good and good for you.