Milk Letter in Breast Cancer Section: Sunday New York Times

[Guest guest]

Yesterday's Sunday New York Times magazine (October 6, 2002)

contains an enormous breast cancer section. Here is a letter written by a breast

cancer surgeon to his patients:

 

THE MILK LETTER: A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS

Robert M. Kradjian, MD

Breast Surgery Chief

Division of General Surgery,

Seton Medical Centre #302

1800 Sullivan Avenue

Daly City, CA 94015 USA

 

" MILK " Just the word itself sounds comforting!

" How about a nice cup of hot milk? " The last time

you heard that question it was from someone who

cared for you--and you appreciated their effort.

 

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk

is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance.

Milk was our very first food. If we were fortunate it

was our mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken.

It was the only path to survival. If not mother's milk

it was cow's milk or soy milk " formula " --rarely it was

goat, camel or water buffalo milk.

 

Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us.

Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged.

We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and

add to that many pounds of " dairy products " such as cheese,

butter, and yogurt.

 

Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring

images of healthy, beautiful people on our television

screens and hear messages that assure us that, " Milk

is good for your body. " Our dieticians insist that:

" You've got to have milk, or where will you get your

calcium? " School lunches always include milk and

nearly every hospital meal will have milk added. And

if that isn't enough, our nutritionists told us for

years that dairy products make up an " essential food

group. " Industry spokesmen made sure that colourful

charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other

essential nutrients were made available at no cost

for schools. Cow's milk became " normal. "

 

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human

beings that live on planet Earth today do not drink or

use cow's milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk

because it makes them ill.

 

There are students of human nutrition who are not

supportive of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation

from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

 

If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to

join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating

dairy products from their diets altogether. Although this

sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five

basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all

the mammals, only humans--and then only a minority,

principally Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond

babyhood. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans--and

then only a minority, principally Caucasians--

continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

 

Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our

answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you

trust any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to

date or are they simply repeating what their professors

learned years ago? What about the new voices urging caution?

 

I believe that there are three reliable sources of

information. The first, and probably the best, is a study

of nature. The second is to study the history of our own

species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific

literature on the subject of milk.

 

Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988

to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk

recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of

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 & 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?

 

 

 

 

 

Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more

faith.