T. Colin Campbell. PhD

[Guest guest]

Dear John,

Thank you for posting this. It comes at a time when I am arguing

(discussing) with my meat/dairy eating daughter-in-law whether my 1 yr old

grandaughter should drink milk. She has had severe reactions even to the

slightest hint of milk. Because of this she is still nursing with the milk

meant for human babies --human milk. Now, the pediatrician has told them to

" go ahead and feed cows milk a little at a time --it is important that she

learn to tolerate it. " This makes me sooooo angry. Meat is also being

introduced, and I feel as if this pure little body is being tainted with

poison. Whew. Anyway, this letter is very interesting and should be helpful

since my daughter-in-law is an environmental scientist (yep --go figger).

 

Chris

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" Love doesn't make the world go 'round;

love is what makes the ride worthwhile. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

>NewCenturyNutrition.com, November, 2000

 

http://www.newcenturynutrition.com/public_html/webzine/milk_editorial.shtml

 

by T. Colin Campbell. PhD

 

Here's a story about public science that I find alarming. On

October 26, I submitted a 150-word Letter to the Editor of the

New York Times, hoping it would be published. It was not.

 

There could be several reasons and I do not know which one was

the most important. Of course, the Times has the right to select,

according to their judgement, what to print. Of course, there may

have been many good letters that had to be set aside because of

space considerations. And, of course, they may have really

believed that my point is not well founded and not worth making

(come to think of it, how can it be in 150 words?). So be it;

that's their choice. Whatever!

 

Sour grapes on my part? I really don't think so. After 40+ years

of working at all levels from WITHIN the scientific establishment

and getting to know and experience first hand its ways, I feel

passionately that this is an example of how science is

misrepresented in the marketplace of ideas.

 

Here is my unpublished piece:

 

" Jane Brody has recently been offering opinions in a New York

Times column on cows' milk and human disease (e.g., 6/20/98;

9/26/00) that beg scientific credibility. As a widely known

health journalist, she is taking too much liberty of stating

" known facts " without allowing scientific scrutiny. I seriously

challenge her views on most of her so-called " facts " alleging the

health benefits of cows' milk while dismissing evidence to the

contrary.

 

" There IS compelling evidence, now published in top scientific

journals, showing that cows' milk is associated, possibly even

causally, with a wide variety of serious human ailments,

including various cancers, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and

an array of allergy related diseases. And, this food contains no

nutrients that cannot be better obtained from other far more

nutritious and tasty foods. A national dialogue is desperately

needed on this topic, for there is far too much at stake,

especially concerning the 26 million children in the school lunch

program. "

 

I previously have had little problem publishing commentary of

this type in the professional and lay literature. However, this

is proving extremely difficult when questioning the dogma on

dairy. I am not especially surprised with this non-response,

given the economic, cultural, and political considerations of

this food in our society. But I must confess that I am becoming

more than a little alarmed.

 

I am alarmed because Jane Brody, who has been an important

opinion maker on food and nutrition issues, seems to have a voice

and a platform which immunize her and her employer against public

comment. She has often been quite responsible in her reporting on

health issues, especially since she has virtually no formal

education in nutrition or any experience in original nutrition

research. But in this instance, especially because of her widely

published views in the food and nutrition area, she has an even

greater need to be responsible for her opinions and to be open to

comment.

 

I am exercised over this issue because I spent many years doing

research on this and closely related topics and have acquired and

spent millions of precious American tax dollars to pursue these

interests. I have also come from a place similar to that of Ms.

Brody, thus I think that I understand her views. Like her, I

accepted the virtual religion surrounding this food. Perhaps, I

was even more enamored with this view on dairy because of my

being raised on a dairy farm before pursuing its virtues in my

graduate research program at Cornell and later in our research

program. However, after teaching and doing the relevant research

in depth and in breadth for many, many years, I now have had to

acknowledge an alternative view.

 

I have been struck by the exceptionally profound results and

observations, some of which are decades old, which now question

the health claims for this food. Indeed, after publishing dozens

of research papers on our findings in the professional

literature, I finally engaged my mouth a few years ago to say

what I came to believe. This included my recently giving a

seminar here at Cornell posing the proposition that cows' milk

protein may be the single most significant chemical carcinogen to

which humans are exposed, to say nothing of its other

questionable effects on health. I am especially concerned about

its effect on breast cancer and other cancers of the reproductive

tract.

 

It is time to take these findings seriously. It is time that we

consider having candid and professionally responsible public

dialogue. But, alas, this is one topic that either becomes buried

in isolated research papers receiving precious little recognition

in the public media or that is dismissed as the words of someone

who has a personal agenda.

 

The same short-sightedness exists from within academia. From

first hand experience, I have observed an unforgivable corruption

of the academic process caused by the dairy lobby. If the public

only knew what I have come to know, I have no doubt that the

outcry would be deafening. At least, please allow me the luxury

of believing that the public would be so attentive and so wise.

 

Prior to my writing the short letter that I had hoped to have

published and before I knew the word limitation, I had written a

slightly longer perhaps slightly more informative piece, as

follows:

 

" Jane Brody has recently been offering opinions in a New York

Times column on cows' milk and human disease (e.g., 6/20/98;

9/26/00) that beg scientific credibility. As a widely known

health journalist, she is taking too much liberty of stating

" known facts " without adequate scientific scrutiny. I seriously

challenge her views on most of her so-called " facts " alleging the

health benefits of cows' milk while dismissing evidence to the

contrary.

 

" There IS compelling evidence, now published in top scientific

journals and some of which is decades old, showing that cows'

milk is associated, possibly even causally, with a wide variety

of serious human ailments, including various cancers,

cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and an array of allergy

related diseases. And, this food contains no nutrients that

cannot be better obtained from other far more nutritious and

tasty foods. A national dialogue is desperately needed for there

is far too much at stake, especially concerning the 26 million

children in the school lunch program.

 

" Much of this disturbing evidence on the adverse health effects

of dairy, obtained both from human and experimental animal

studies, meets the test of biological plausibility.

 

" Research in our own laboratory at Cornell University, supported

by more than two decades of funding from the National Institutes

of Health, the American Cancer Society and the American Institute

for Cancer Research, has produced findings to support this

concern. These extensive findings, published in the top

scientific journals, show that cows' milk protein, for example,

rather vigorously promotes tumor development in experimental

animal studies at consumption levels equivalent to that of human

consumption. And, when considering the remaining nutrient

composition of cows' milk, this observation on protein is made

even more disturbing.

 

" The question is not whether we have air tight evidence on these

disturbing observations. Rather, it is now time to begin taking

seriously this disturbing evidence in respect to its consistency,

its comprehensiveness, its plausibility, and its relevance for

human health. Understandably, it is a difficult task to challenge

such a popular food, especially when promoted by an industry with

virtually unlimited funding to pedal their product. I know very

well this difficulty, for I come from a background of dairy

farming and graduate school training having indoctrinated me in

the more traditional point of view. Nonetheless, it is now time,

both within and beyond the professions, to begin a serious

dialogue to consider the worthiness of these observations.

 

" We must begin to seriously challenge, for example, the massive

school lunch program that mandates the cows' milk option, only to

risk compromising the health of so many children who are

predisposed to allergenic and disease producing effects, simply

to satisfy a government subsidy. We can no longer afford to be so

constrained within a research funding environment that seriously

limits an honest exploration of this issue. And we can no longer

tolerate a media that, for whatever reason, find it more

acceptable to hide their own agenda at the expense of public

health. "

 

If anyone reading this opinion of mine has any ideas on how this

topic might get a wider audience, please feel free to do with it

as you wish (perhaps even including sending it to Ms. Brody, who

should consider coming back to her alma mater here at Cornell to

take my course in nutrition--I would welcome her participation

and critique!).

 

Regardless what the evidence may turn out to be, it is

imperative that we at least discuss its reliability. I once

thought that that was what science is all about.

 

Have a Nice Holiday,

 

Colin

T. Colin Campbell, PhD (CEO/President/Chairman)

Paracelsian, Inc., Ithaca, NY

 

(Jacob Gould Schurman Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry

Cornell University, On Leave)

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" Love doesn't make the world go 'round;

love is what makes the ride worthwhile. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~