The Milk Letter: A Message to My Patients

[Guest guest]

The Milk Letter: A Message to My Patients

by Robert M. Kradjian, MD

Chief of Breast Surgery, Division of General Surgery

Seton Medical Centre

 

New York Times magazine - October 6, 2003

 

" 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

colorful 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. 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

made 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 ten 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

percent) 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

labeling for that reason,

and because the labeling 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 milliliter. (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 four 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 two 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

five 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

four to seven 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, it'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 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 pasteurized 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 three months and diabetes risk. " .

 

Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher

levels of serum antibodies to cow's 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

pasteurization - if the pasteurization 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

pasteurization.

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 four 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 one

to three 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 two 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 analyzed.

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 tumor 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 Tartar) 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 five 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 tumor -

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 three or more times daily had a two-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 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 newborns with

the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability

often extinguishes by age four or five 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 African

Americans, 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 cow's 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, killjoy, 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 non-gmo soy milk,

rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still

concerned about

calcium, Eden and " 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 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 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?

 

http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/home/home_a.html

 

--