The Milk Letter: A Message To My Patients

[Guest guest]

The Milk Letter: A Message to My Patients,by Robert M. Kradjian, MDJoAnn Guest Feb 01, 2005 15:20 PSTChief of Breast Surgery, Division of General SurgerySeton Medical CentreNew York Times magazine - October 6, 2003"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a nice cupof hot milk?" The last time you heard that question it was fromsomeone who cared for you - and you appreciated their effort.The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surroundedwith emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very firstfood. 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'smilk 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 dozensor even several hundred gallons a year and add to that many poundsof dairy products such as cheese, butter, and yogurt.Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images ofhealthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hearmessages that assure us that, "Milk is good for your body."Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to have milk, or where will youget your calcium?"School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal willhave milk added.And if that isn't enough, our nutritionists told us for years that dairyproducts make up an"essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure thatcolorful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and otheressential 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 thatlive 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 milkuse 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 thegrowing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products fromtheir diets altogether.Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and thefive basic food groups, it is eminently viable.Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans - and then only aminority, principally Caucasians - continue to drink milk beyondbabyhood. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans - and then only aminority, principally Caucasians - continue to drink milk beyondbabyhood.Who is right?Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Canwe trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industryspokesmen?Are nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeatingwhat 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 weneed to look at the world's scientific literature on the subject ofmilk. Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded inthe 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of these had milk as themain 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 thatdealt 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 anexcellent food, free of side effects and the "perfectfood" as we have been led to believe by the industry.The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinalcolic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergicreactions in infants and children as well as "infections" such assalmonella.More ominous is the fear of viral infection with "bovine leukemia"virus or an "AIDS-like" virus as well as concern for "childhooddiabetes".Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as avariety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed.Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsilinfections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhooddiabetes.In adults the problems seemed centered more around heartdisease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more seriousquestions of leukemia,lymphoma and cancer.I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of whatoccurs in nature & what happens with free living mammals and whathappens with human groups living in close to a natural state as'hunter-gatherers'.Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting groupto 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 greatstrength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions showthis), 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 almostexactly 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 fornewborns.Nothing more.Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a shortperiod of time immediately after birth.When the time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introducedto the proper food for that species of mammal.A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup forjust a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eatsolid 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 stateto 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 settledon the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundantmilk supply. Somehow this choice seems 'normal' and blessed bynature, 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 amammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of adog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or catmilk.Do you get the idea?Well, I'm not serious about this, except to suggest that human milkis 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 goodjudgement on this one.Milk is not just milk.The milk of every "species" of mammal is unique and specificallytailored to the "requirements" of that animal.For example, cows' milk is very much richer in "protein" than humanmilk. 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 fattyacids, 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 theproper 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 - aregradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow aparticular 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 muscl as does a calf.Think of the difference between the demands made on the human hand andthe 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 infantsinto two groups.One group received a proper formula, the other group received humanbreast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube.These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligencetesting, the human milk children averaged ten IQ points higher! Well,why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidlymaturing and growing brain have a positive effect?In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holmandescribed an infant who developed profound neurological diseasewhile being nourished by intravenous fluids only.The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essentialfatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to theintravenous 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 patientson long term gastric tube feeding.In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleicacid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome.Why is this mentioned?In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fedformulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, theaddition of the acid to the formula cured the problem.Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is markedly deficientin 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 ofmilk per year.Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds!How was this accomplished?Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans, and specializedbreeding; that's how.The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growthhormone or BGH.This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milkproduction but, according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, doesnot affect the milk or meat.There are three other manufacturers:Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there havebeen no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinkingthe milk.Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns.One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows' body isthat the molecules usually come out in the milk.I don't know how you feel, but I don't want to experiment with theingestion of a growth hormone.A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70percent) in mastitis.This, then, requires "antibiotic therapy", and the residues of theantibiotics appear in the milk.It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in onesurvey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk representeda health risk.A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed tolabeling 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 thanwe can consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayerburdens,because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus ofbutter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price set byCongress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter,andone billion dollars a year on average for price supportsduring 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 containfrom one to one and a half million white blood cells per milliliter.(That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If youdon't already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way todescribe 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 achemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail?Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you?The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that theFDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public fromdrug 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 claimsit's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still think that milk isthe safest product we have."Other, perhaps "less biased" observers, have found the following:38% of milk samples in 10 cities were "contaminated" with sulfa drugsor other antibiotics.(This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The WallStreet Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC founda 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April1990).What's going on here?When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, theyused very lax standards.When they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent ofthe milk samples showed drug traces.Let's focus in on this because it's critical to our understanding ofthe apparent discrepancies.The FDA uses a "disk-assay" method that can detect only two of the 30 orso drugs found in milk.Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A morepowerful test called the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down tofive parts per billion.One nasty subject must be discussed.It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the udder thatrequire 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 cellsin 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders.An elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cellcultures, flow cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high techstuff.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 hadcontamination 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'swhat's in these products.(Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothershad only half the levels of contamination).A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides inthe breast tissue of women with "breast cancer" when compared to thetissue 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): 4372. Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J.Pediatr. I01 (1982): 9063. The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women'sMilk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing theprompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in children beingexclusively breast-fed!The cows' milk allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and aretransmitted to the infant.A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatricsreported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983:72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovinemilk should be used before the first birthday yet continued torecommend its use!Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department ofPediatrics, 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 ofwhole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that wholemilk not be started until the answers are available.Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutritionto 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 inthe first year of life because of its association with "irondeficiency anemia"(milk is so deficient in iron that an infant wouldhave to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15mg), acute gastrointestinal bleeding, and various manifestations offood allergy.I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumedafter infancy because of the problems oflactose intolerance, its contribution to the "genesis ofatherosclerosis", and its possible link to other diseases.In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best knownpediatrician in history, shocked the country when he articulated thesame thoughts and specified avoidance for the first two years oflife.Here is his quotation:I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from thecarton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the rightone 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 importantand inexpensive.And it will probably never be done. There is simplyno academic or economic profit involved.Other problemsLet's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination.Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced tomilk.In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want togo 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 ofsalmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to rawmilk.That'll be a way to revive good old "brucellosis" again and I wouldfear leukemia, too. (More about that later).In England, and Wales where raw milk is still consumed there havebeen outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the AmericanMedical Association (251: 483, 1984)reported a multi-state series of infections caused by "Yersiniaenterocolitica" 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 ClinicalNutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a"...significant positive correlation between consumption of unfermentedmilk protein and incidence of "insulin dependent" *diabetes mellitus* indata from various countries.Conversely a possible negative relationship is observed betweenbreast-feeding at age three months and diabetes risk.".Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higherlevels 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 isaltered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetesmellitus or, their "immunological reactivity" to proteins in cows'milk is 'enhanced',or the "permeability" of their intestines to cows' milk protein ishigher than normal.The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating studycontrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulindependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated toEngland.The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the Englishgroup compared to children remaining in Pakistan!What caused this highly significant increase?The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great Britain." Doyou believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk, sugar andfat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England?That a grocery store in England has the same products as foodsources in Pakistan?I don't believe that for a minute.Remember, we're not talking here about adult onset, type IIdiabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to "diet" as well asto 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 authorsof the last article concluded that the cooler climate in Englandaltered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes!The first two authors had the same reluctance to admit the obvious. Themilk just may have had something to do with the disease.The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a "New England Journal ofMedicine" article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the LosAngeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Childrenin Toronto and from Finnish researchers.In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy productconsumption and the world's "highest rate" of "insulin dependentdiabetes".The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 therecontrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States...."Antibodies" produced 'against'the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchersspeculate,also "attack" and "destroy" the 'pancreas' in a so-called "auto-immune" reaction, "producing" diabetes in people whose genetic makeupleaves them vulnerable.""...142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They foundthat every one had at least eight times as many "antibodies" againstthe 'milk protein' as did healthy children, clear evidence that thechildren had a raging "auto immune" disorder."The team has now expanded the study to 400 children andis starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no dairyproducts during the first nine months of life."The study may take10 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 mothersuse on cows' milk in their diets or the results will be confoundedby the transmission of thecows' 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: "Itdoes not mean that children should stop drinking milk or thatparents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are richsources 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 AmericanDiabetes 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 inmore than three of five dairy cows in the United States! Thisinvolves about 80% of dairy herds.Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage ofall milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent).Of course the virus is killed in pasteurization - IF the pasteurizationwas done correctly.What if the milk is raw?In a study of randomly collected "raw milk" samples the "bovine leukemiavirus" was recovered from two-thirds.I sincerelyhope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully monitored whencompared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014).This is a world-wide problem.One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and admittedthe impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from therest of the milk. SeveralEuropean countries, including Germany and Switzerland, haveattempted to "cull" the infected cows from their herds.Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight againstleukemic dairy cows, right?Wrong!We are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuelaaccording to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. inDairy Manufacturing as well as aMaster's degree in Public Health.As mentioned, the "leukemia virus" is rendered inactive bypasteurization.Of course. However, there can be "Chernobyl" like 'accidents'. One ofthese occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985.At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental "crossconnection" between raw and pasteurized milk occurred.A violent salmonella outbreak followed, killing four and making anestimated 150,000 ill.Now the question I would pose to the dairy industrypeople is this:"How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they werenot exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bullyactive bovine leukemia viruses?"Further, it would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemiacases blossoms in that area in one to three decades.There are reports of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of themmentioned in the June 10, 1990 "San Francisco Chronicle" involvingNorthern California.What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed tothe bovine leukemia virus?It's a fair question and the answer is not reassuring.Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia. Thisincludes sheep, goats, and even primates such asrhesus monkeys and chimpanzees.The route of transmission includes ingestion (both intravenous andintramuscular) and cells present in milk.There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts to humanbeings, but we know that the virus can infect human cells "invitro"There is evidence of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemiavirus; this is disturbing.How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to humans andbecome antigens? Was it assmall, denatured particles?If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we couldexpect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higherincidence 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 leukemiathan the national average.In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virushave been linked with increases in human leukemia.I am also told that veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia thanthe general public. Dairy farmers have significantly elevatedleukemia rates.Recent research shows"lymphocytes"from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues bypassing "directly"through the intestinal wall.An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from theDepartment of Animal Sciences shows the importance of oneperspective. Since they are concerned with the economics of milk andnot primarily the health aspects, they noted that the production ofmilk was greater in the cows with the bovine leukemia virus.However when the leukemia produced a persistent and significant"lymphphcytosis"(increasedwhite blood cell count), the production fell off.They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impactof bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry".Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can keepit under control?You can get the details on this business concern from Proc.Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added emphasis and aminsulted that a university department feels that this is an economicand not a human health issue.Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or theuniversities. The money stakes and thepolitical 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 tohuman leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)?Several articles tackle this one:1. Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and HumanLeukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980):802. Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus.Science 213 (1981): 10143. Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is BovineMilk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant.75:182-186; 1985In 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 theincidence 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, November27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled,"Lymphomas and Animal- Protein Consumption".Many people think of milk as "liquid meat" and Dr. Cunningham agreeswith this. He tracked the beef and dairyconsumption 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. Thedifference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan.Nearly a 30-fold difference!(Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increasein the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their diseasepatterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of 'geneticprotection' 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 theGyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where thefirst cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chainsaround this memorial were a gift from the US Navy.Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? Theyear? 1930.Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation betweendeaths 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 ofthe recommended requirements.Excessive consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in thecausation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.Ingestion of certain proteinsresults in the adsorption of"antigenic fragments"through the"gastrointestinal mucous membrane"This results in chronic"stimulation"of lymphoid tissue to whichthese fragments gain access"Chronic immunological stimulation*causes*lymphomas in laboratoryanimals and is believed to cause"lymphoid cancers"in men."The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier tothe absorption of food antigens, andcirculating antibodies to food protein is commonplace, especiallypotent"lymphoid stimulants."Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized"lymphadenopathy""hpatosplenomegaly",and profound"adenoid hypertrophy"It has been conservatively estimated that morethan 100 distinct"antigens"are released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evokeproduction 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 BritishJournal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individualswere followed for 11 and a half years).For most cancers there was no association between the tumor and milkingestion.However, in"lymphoma" there was a strong positive association.If one drank two glasses or more daily (or theequivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4 times greater thanin persons drinking less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be awareof. At this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairyproducts and are not known to involve man.The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the secondis 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 sheepparts, 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 spongiformencephalopathy",or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain.The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal andis 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have beenincinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500cows are reported as infected each month.The British public is concerned andhas dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several farmers havedeveloped a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD(Creutzfeldt-Jakob-Disease).But the British Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE tohumans is "remote."The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding ofcattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plantsfrom the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibitedthe importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britainand 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 slaughterhouses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral orbacterial diseases to walk.Thus they are "down."If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are draggedby chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, ifthey are not already dead, they are killed.Even a "humane" death is usually denied them. They are then turnedinto protein food for animals as well as otherpreparations.Minks that have been fed this protein have developed afatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE.Entirecolonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly inWisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slowvirus possible obtained from the ill "downer cows."The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsicallyentitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-30)describes cases of BSE in species not previously known to beaffected, such as cats.They admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiformencephalopathy entered the human food chain inEngland between 1986 and 1989. They say. "The result of thisexperiment is awaited." As the incubation period can be up to threedecades, wait we must.The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States andis more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of thehuman AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the rawBIV proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive forHIV.The extent of the virus among American herds is saidbe "widespread". (The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk tosee 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 incows.Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows infectedwith these viruses and noscientific assurance exists that the products are safe. Eating rawbeef (as in steak Tartar) strikes me as being very risky, especiallyafter the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993.A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature,tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection inhuman serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virusprotein.In addition to this disturbing report, is another fromRussia telling us of the presence of virus proteins related to thebovine leukemia virus in five of 89 women with breast disease (ActaVirologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of thesedevelopments 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 gavea woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users.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 ovariancancerand per capita milk consumption.These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is theresponsible fraction, and thedigestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the abilityto digest the lactose (lactose persistence) - a little differentemphasis, 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'sleading institutions, notthe 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 againat 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-foldincrease in"lungcancer" risk compared to those never drinking wholemilk.For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates forJapanese men who smoke far more than American or European men, butwho develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feelthat the total fat intake is the difference.There are not many reports studying an association between milkingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of greatinterest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and isfound in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989.They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients andcomparable control subjects:Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk dailyhad a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported neverdrinking whole milk the weight of the evidence appears to favor thehypothesis that"animal fat"is related to increased risk of prostate cancer.Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed inUS 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 thansimple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these wouldbe the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source ofamino acids (proteins).Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all aboutcalcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protectus against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded withcalcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans?I think not.These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actuallyinterfere with"calcium absorption".Secondly, the excess of"protein"that the milk provides is a majorcause of the osteoporosis problem.Dr. Hegsted in England has been writing for years about thegeographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that thecountries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariablythe countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is acause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below.Numerous studies have shown that the level of"calcium ingestion"andespecially calcium supplementation has"no effect"whatever on thedevelopment of osteoporosis.The most important such article appeared recently in the"BritishJournal of Medicine"where the long armof our dairy industry can't reach.Another study in the United States actually showed a worsening incalcium 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 notethe"absence"of any recorded"dietry deficiencies"of calcium among people living on a natural dietwithout milk.For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don't look at calcium, lookat protein.Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionallyhigh protein intake estimated at 25 percent of totalcalories. 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. Theyhave a 12 percent protein diet, mostly plant protein, and only 200 to350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake.The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or morechildren and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African womenimmigrate 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 yourcalcium?"The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow getsthe calcium, from green things that grow in the ground," mainly fromleafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their hugebones (afterbeing weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so dohorses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafyplants.It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live inharmony 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 severalbillion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk.Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this hugegroup?The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactlythe opposite.They have far less than thanseen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed. It isthe subject ofanother paper, but the truly significant determinants ofosteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and lack ofweight 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 MYTHRemember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to "makesure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was thenutritional "good guy" when I was young.And of course milk fitsright 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 asource of difficulty.Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that Iam aware of.This is the latest edition (1oth, 1989: 4th printing,Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by theNational Research Council.Of interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr. RichardHavel of the University of California in San Francisco.First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadilyrevised downward in successive editions.The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical 60kilogram adult.You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein inadults to by .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with largesafety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add somemore 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 anda half!Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animalprotein. Vegetable protein is"identical"for all practical purposesand has no"cholesterol"and vastly less saturated fat.(Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins mustbe carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies.This is not a realistic concern.)Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British andEuropean people are in a"protein overloaded"state.This has serious consequences when maintained over decades. Theproblems are thealready 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 fullypoint 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 thelowest (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 tometabolize lactose, but this abilityoften 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 bloodstream withoutfirst being broken down into"monosaccharides",namely galactose and glucose.This requires the presence of an"enzyme",lactase plus additionalenzymes 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 andthen 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 thetendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that arenot needed.At least half of the adult humans on this earth arelactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recentintroduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow" milk fromanother group of mammals that the survival advantage of preservinglactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest lactose) becameevident.But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk?After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. Andfurther, why was it just the white or light skinned humans whoretained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it?Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recentinnovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. Itclearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to coldand relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing becameavailable.Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight morereadily than does dark skin.However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fairskin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from sunlight.If dietary and sunlightsources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundantcalcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to humans whocould digest that milk. This seems to be the only logicalexplanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactosetolerance when compared to dark skinned people.How does this break down?Certain racial groups, namely African Americans, are up to 90% lactoseintolerant as adults. Caucasiansare 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between theabove two groups.Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milkintake in such persons. Most American Indianscannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactoseintolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 millionAmericans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and hadsales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Isall lost? Not at all.It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will beable to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similarin this respect.Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want tosplice genes toalter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fibercontent and that its habitual use will predispose to constipationand bowel disorders.The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding ininfants is known to all physicians.This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities forthe"intestinal mucosa" Thepediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritatedintestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as well ascolic, diarrhea and vomiting in cow's milk-sensitive babies.The anemia gets a double push by"loss of blood" and iron as well asdeficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading causeof childhood allergy.LOW FATOne additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common andsincere 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 isalsomisleading. 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 youput on your cereal?")True, there is little or no fat,but now you have a relative"overburden"of protein and lactose.If there is something that we do not need more of it is another"simplesugar"lactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of Americansare lactose intolerant to boot, as noted.As for protein, as stated earlier, we live in a society thatroutinely ingests far more protein than we need.It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominentcause 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" isformulated to have the same"calcium concentration"as milk.SUMMARYTo my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or usemilk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because welike it and because it has become a part of our culture. Because wehave become accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like theway it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very bestthey could for us and provided milk in our earliest training andconditioning.They taught us to like it.And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard itdescribed "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 eatmeat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promotingone; 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 manyoccasions he would eat an entire quart - and yes there were some cookiesand other pastries.Good ice cream deserves this after all.He seemed to be in good health despite some expected "middle agespread" when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed,miserable and helpless,and he had additional strokes and died several years later neverhaving 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 thescientific evidence that it does not "do a body good."Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's nutritional value andsafety.Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully withoutcows' milk. You can too.It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned sincechildhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food." I'llguarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health and it won'tcost anything.What can you lose?http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/home/home_a.html