The Milk Letter: A Message to My Patients, by Robert M. Kradjian, MD

[Guest guest]

The Milk Letter: A Message to My Patients,

 

by Robert M. Kradjian, MD

JoAnn Guest Feb 01, 2005 15:20 PST

 

Chief of Breast Surgery, Division of General Surgery

Seton Medical Centre

 

New York Times magazine - October 6, 2003

 

" MILK " Just the word itself sounds comforting! " How about a nice cup

of hot milk? " The last time you heard that question it was from

someone who cared for you - and you appreciated their effort.

 

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded

with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first

food. If we were fortunate it was our mother's milk. A loving link,

given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother's

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

camel or water buffalo milk.

 

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

the young, adolescents, adults, and even the aged. We drink dozens

or even several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds

of dairy products such as cheese, butter, and yogurt.

 

Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of

healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear

messages that assure us that, " Milk is good for your body. "

Our dieticians insist that: " You've got to have milk, or where will you

get your calcium? "

School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will

have milk added.

 

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

products make up an

" essential food group. " Industry spokesmen made sure that

colorful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other

essential nutrients were made available at no cost for schools.

 

Cow's milk became " normal. "

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that

live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's milk.

 

Further, most of them can't drink milk because it makes them ill.

There are students of " human nutrition " who are not supportive of milk

use for adults.

 

Here is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

 

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

growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from

their diets altogether.

Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the

five basic food groups, it is eminently viable.

 

Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans - and then only a

minority, principally Caucasians - continue to drink milk beyond

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

minority, principally Caucasians - continue to drink milk beyond

babyhood.

 

Who is right?

Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can

we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industry

spokesmen?

Are nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeating

what their professors learned years ago?

What about the new voices urging caution?

 

I believe that there are three reliable sources of information.

The first, and probably the best, is a study of nature.

 

The second is to study the history of our own species. Finally we

need to look at the world's scientific literature on the subject of

milk. Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993

there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in

the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of these had milk as the

main focus of the article.

 

There is no lack of " scientific " information on this subject.

I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that

dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and " inconclusive "

studies.

 

How would I summarize the articles?

They were only slightly less than " horrifying " .

 

First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an

excellent food, free of side effects and the " perfect

food " as we have been led to believe by the industry.

 

The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal

colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic

reactions in infants and children as well as " infections " such as

salmonella.

 

More ominous is the fear of viral infection with " bovine leukemia "

virus or an " AIDS-like " virus as well as concern for " childhood

diabetes " .

 

Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a

variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed.

 

Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsil

infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood

diabetes.

 

In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart

disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious

questions of leukemia,

lymphoma and cancer.

 

I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of what

occurs in nature & what happens with free living mammals and what

happens with human groups living in close to a natural state as

'hunter-gatherers'.

 

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group

to study.

Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences,

but the " bony remains " available for our study are remarkable.

 

There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great

strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show

this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis.

 

And if you feel that these people are not important for us to study,

consider that today our genes are " programming " our bodies in almost

exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.

 

What is Milk??

 

Milk is a " maternal lactating " secretion, a short-term nutrient for

newborns.

 

Nothing more.

 

Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a short

period of time immediately after birth.

 

When the time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced

to the proper food for that species of mammal.

A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for

just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eat

solid food.

 

Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of mammals.

Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state

to continue with the drinking of milk after weaning.

 

Is All Milk the Same??

 

Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have settled

on the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundant

milk supply. Somehow this choice seems 'normal' and blessed by

nature, our culture, and our customs.

 

But is it natural?

Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal?

 

Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a

mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a

dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat

milk.

 

Do you get the idea?

 

Well, I'm not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk

is for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves,

cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth.

Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good

judgement on this one.

 

Milk is not just milk.

The milk of every " species " of mammal is unique and specifically

tailored to the " requirements " of that animal.

For example, cows' milk is very much richer in " protein " than human

milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the

" mineral content " .

 

However, it is markedly " deficient " in " essential fatty acids "

when compared to human mothers' milk.

 

Mothers' milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty

acids, especially linoleic acid.

(Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid).

 

It simply is not designed for humans.

 

Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the

proper amount of food but the proper " qualitative "

composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth.

 

Biochemists and physiologists - and rarely medical doctors - are

gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a

particular species to develop its unique

" specializations "

 

Clearly, our specialization is for advanced

" neurological development " and delicate " neuromuscular control "

 

We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle

groups as does a calf.

Think of the difference between the demands made on the human hand and

the demands on a cow's hoof.

 

Human newborns specifically need critical material for their brains,

spinal cord and nerves.

 

Can mother's milk increase intelligence?

It seems that it can.

 

In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, p.

261- 4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants

into two groups.

 

One group received a proper formula, the other group received human

breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube.

These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence

testing, the human milk children averaged ten IQ points higher! Well,

why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidly

maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

 

In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman

described an infant who developed profound neurological disease

while being nourished by intravenous fluids only.

 

The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential

fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the

intravenous fluids the " neurological disorders " cleared.

 

In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen,

working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients

on long term gastric tube feeding.

 

In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic

acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome.

Why is this mentioned?

In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed

formulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the

addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem.

 

Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is markedly deficient

in these when compared to human milk.

 

Well, at least cow's milk is pure...

Or is it?

Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of

milk per year.

 

Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds!

How was this accomplished?

Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans, and specialized

breeding; that's how.

 

The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth

hormone or BGH.

 

This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk

production but, according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does

not affect the milk or meat.

 

There are three other manufacturers:

Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there have

been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinking

the milk.

 

Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns.

 

One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows' body is

that the molecules usually come out in the milk.

 

I don't know how you feel, but I don't want to experiment with the

ingestion of a growth hormone.

A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70

percent) in mastitis.

 

This, then, requires " antibiotic therapy " , and the residues of the

antibiotics appear in the milk.

 

It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in one

survey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk represented

a health risk.

A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed to

labeling for that reason, and because the labeling would create an

'artificial distinction'.

 

The country is awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than

we can consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer

burdens,

because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus of

butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price set by

Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter,

and

one billion dollars a year on average for price supports

during the 1980s (Consumer Reports, May 1992: 330-32).

 

Any lactating mammal excretes " toxins " through her milk.

 

This includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones.

Also, all cows' milk contains blood!

The inspectors are simply asked to keep it under certain limits.

 

You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain

from one to one and a half million white blood cells per milliliter.

(That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you

don't already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to

describe white cells where they don't belong would be to call them

" pus cells " .

 

To get to the point, is milk pure or is it a

chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail?

 

Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you?

 

The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the

FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public from

drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only

" four " of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.

 

As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman claims

it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, " I still think that milk is

the safest product we have. "

 

Other, perhaps " less biased " observers, have found the following:

 

38% of milk samples in 10 cities were " contaminated " with sulfa drugs

or other antibiotics.

(This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The Wall

Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC found

a 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April

1990).

 

What's going on here?

When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, they

used very lax standards.

When they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent of

the milk samples showed drug traces.

Let's focus in on this because it's critical to our understanding of

the apparent discrepancies.

 

The FDA uses a " disk-assay " method that can detect only two of the 30 or

so drugs found in milk.

Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A more

powerful test called the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to

five parts per billion.

 

One nasty subject must be discussed.

It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the udder that

require ointments and antibiotics.

 

An article from France tells us that when a cow receives penicillin,

that penicillin appears in the milk for from four to seven milkings.

 

Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells

in 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders.

 

An elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell

cultures, flow cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech

stuff.

 

Do you know what the conclusion was?

 

If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the milk.

 

Sorry, it's in the study, all " concealed " with language such as

" macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles, " etc.

 

It gets worse!

 

Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure!

Sorry.

 

A huge study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had

contamination by " pesticides " !

Further, it seems that the

" sources "

of the pesticides are meat and - you guessed it - dairy products.

 

Well, why not?

These pesticides are concentrated in *fat* and that's

what's in these products.

(Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers

had only half the levels of contamination).

 

A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides in

the breast tissue of women with " breast cancer " when compared to the

tissue of women with fibrocystic disease.

 

Other articles in the standard medical literature describe problems.

 

Just scan these titles:

 

1. Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants.

Lancet 2 (1978): 437

 

2. Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J.

Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906

 

3. The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women's

Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15

 

There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing the

prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in children being

exclusively breast-fed!

 

The cows' milk allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are

transmitted to the infant.

 

A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics

reported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983:

72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine

milk should be used before the first birthday yet continued to

recommend its use!

 

Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of

Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of

" acute gastrointestinal blood loss " in infants, the

" lack of iron', " recurrent abdominal pain " , " milk-borne infections " and

" contaminants " , and said:

Why give it at all - then or ever?

 

In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of

whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole

milk not be started until the answers are available.

 

Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition

to come to an end?

In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:

 

It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in

the first year of life because of its association with " iron

deficiency anemia "

(milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would

have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15

mg), acute gastrointestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of

food allergy.

 

I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed

after infancy because of the problems of

lactose intolerance, its contribution to the " genesis of

atherosclerosis " , and its possible link to other diseases.

 

In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known

pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he articulated the

same thoughts and specified avoidance for the first two years of

life.

 

Here is his quotation:

 

I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from the

carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right

one for babies.

A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-

fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important.

I haven't found such a study; it would be both important

and inexpensive.

And it will probably never be done. There is simply

no academic or economic profit involved.

 

Other problems

 

Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination.

Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to

milk.

 

In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to

go back to those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's

" natural. "

 

This is insanity!

 

A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of

salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw

milk.

That'll be a way to revive good old " brucellosis " again and I would

fear leukemia, too. (More about that later).

 

In England, and Wales where raw milk is still consumed there have

been outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American

Medical Association (251: 483, 1984)

reported a multi-state series of infections caused by " Yersinia

enterocolitica " in pasteurized whole milk.

 

This is despite safety precautions.

 

All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children.

A Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a

 

" ...significant positive correlation between consumption of unfermented

milk protein and incidence of " insulin dependent " *diabetes mellitus* in

data from various countries.

 

Conversely a possible negative relationship is observed between

breast-feeding at age three months and diabetes risk. " .

 

Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher

levels of serum antibodies to cow's milk (Diabetes Research 7(3):

137-140 March 1988).

 

Here is a quotation from this study:

 

We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption is

altered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetes

mellitus or, their " immunological reactivity " to proteins in cows'

milk is 'enhanced',

or the " permeability " of their intestines to cows' milk protein is

higher than normal.

 

The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study

contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulin

dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated to

England.

The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English

group compared to children remaining in Pakistan!

 

What caused this highly significant increase?

 

The authors said that " the diet was unchanged in Great Britain. " Do

you believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk, sugar and

fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England?

That a grocery store in England has the same products as food

sources in Pakistan?

I don't believe that for a minute.

 

Remember, we're not talking here about adult onset, type II

diabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to " diet " as well as

to a genetic predisposition.

This study is a major blow to the " it's all in your genes " crowd.

 

Type I diabetes was always considered to be genetic or possibly viral,

but now this?

 

So resistant are we to consider diet as causation that the authors

of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in England

altered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes!

 

The first two authors had the same reluctance to admit the obvious. The

milk just may have had something to do with the disease.

 

The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a " New England Journal of

Medicine " article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the Los

Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children

in Toronto and from Finnish researchers.

 

In Finland there is " ...the world's highest rate of dairy product

consumption and the world's " highest rate " of " insulin dependent

diabetes " .

 

The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there

contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States....

 

" Antibodies " produced 'against'

the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers

speculate,

also " attack " and " destroy " the 'pancreas' in a so-called " auto-

immune " reaction, " producing " diabetes in people whose genetic makeup

leaves them vulnerable. "

 

" ...142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found

that every one had at least eight times as many " antibodies " against

the 'milk protein' as did healthy children, clear evidence that the

children had a raging " auto immune " disorder. "

 

The team has now expanded the study to 400 children and

is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no dairy

products during the first nine months of life.

" The study may take

10 years, but we'll get a definitive answer one way or the other, "

according to one of the researchers.

 

I would caution them to be certain that the breast feeding mothers

use on cows' milk in their diets or the results will be confounded

by the transmission of the

cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk....

Now what was the reaction from the diabetes association?

 

This is very interesting!

 

Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the association says: " It

does not mean that children should stop drinking milk or that

parents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are rich

sources of good protein. " (Emphasis added)

 

My God, it's the " good protein " that causes the problem!

 

Do you suspect that the dairy industry may have helped the American

Diabetes Association in the past?

 

LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST - BRACE YOURSELF!

 

I hate to tell you this, but the " bovine leukemia virus " is found in

more than three of five dairy cows in the United States! This

involves about 80% of dairy herds.

 

Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage of

all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent).

 

Of course the virus is killed in pasteurization - IF the pasteurization

was done correctly.

 

What if the milk is raw?

 

In a study of randomly collected " raw milk " samples the " bovine leukemia

virus " was recovered from two-thirds.

I sincerely

hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully monitored when

compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014).

 

This is a world-wide problem.

One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and admitted

the impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the

rest of the milk. Several

European countries, including Germany and Switzerland, have

attempted to " cull " the infected cows from their herds.

 

Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight against

leukemic dairy cows, right?

 

Wrong!

 

We are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuela

according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in

Dairy Manufacturing as well as a

Master's degree in Public Health.

 

As mentioned, the " leukemia virus " is rendered inactive by

pasteurization.

Of course. However, there can be " Chernobyl " like 'accidents'. One of

these occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985.

 

At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental " cross

connection " between raw and pasteurized milk occurred.

A violent salmonella outbreak followed, killing four and making an

estimated 150,000 ill.

 

Now the question I would pose to the dairy industry

people is this:

 

" How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they were

not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully

active bovine leukemia viruses? "

 

Further, it would be fascinating to know if a " cluster " of leukemia

cases blossoms in that area in one to three decades.

 

There are reports of " leukemia clusters " elsewhere, one of them

mentioned in the June 10, 1990 " San Francisco Chronicle " involving

Northern California.

 

What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed to

the bovine leukemia virus?

 

It's a fair question and the answer is not reassuring.

 

Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This

includes sheep, goats, and even primates such as

rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees.

 

The route of transmission includes ingestion (both intravenous and

intramuscular) and cells present in milk.

There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts to human

beings, but we know that the virus can infect human cells " in

vitro "

 

There is evidence of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia

virus; this is disturbing.

 

How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to humans and

become antigens? Was it as

small, denatured particles?

 

If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we could

expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higher

incidence of human leukemia. Is this so?

 

Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota,

Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically higher incidence of leukemia

than the national average.

 

In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus

have been linked with increases in human leukemia.

 

I am also told that veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than

the general public. Dairy farmers have significantly elevated

leukemia rates.

 

Recent research shows " lymphocytes "

from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by

passing " directly "

through the intestinal wall.

 

An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from the

Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance of one

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

" lymphphcytosis "

(increased

white blood cell count), the production fell off.

They suggested " a need to re-evaluate the economic impact

of bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry " .

 

Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can keep

it under control?

 

You can get the details on this business concern from Proc.

Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added emphasis and am

insulted that a university department feels that this is an economic

and not a human health issue.

 

Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or the

universities. The money stakes and the

political pressures are too great.

 

You're on you own.

 

What does this all mean? We know that " virus " is capable of producing

" leukemia " in other animals.

Is it proven that it can contribute to

human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)?

 

Several articles tackle this one:

 

1. Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human

Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980):80

 

2. Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus.

Science 213 (1981): 1014

 

3. Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine

Milk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant.

75:182-186; 1985

 

In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years.

 

Those drinking two or more glasses of milk per day had 3.5 times the

incidence of " cancer " of the " lymphatic " organs.

British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.

 

One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S.

Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the Lancet, November

27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled,

 

" Lymphomas and Animal- Protein Consumption " .

Many people think of milk as " liquid meat " and Dr. Cunningham agrees

with this. He tracked the beef and dairy

consumption in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-

1956, in 15 countries.

 

New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that order.

 

The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The

difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8

grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan.

 

Nearly a 30-fold difference!

 

(Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increase

in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease

patterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of 'genetic

protection' seen in migration studies.

 

Formerly the increase in frequency of " lymphomas "

in Japanese people was only in those who moved to the USA)!

 

An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the

Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the

first cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chains

around this memorial were a gift from the US Navy.

 

Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The

year? 1930.

Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation between

deaths from " lymphomas "

and beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries analyzed.

A few quotations from his article follow:

 

The average intake of protein in many countries is far in excess of

the recommended requirements.

 

Excessive consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the

causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.

 

Ingestion of certain proteins

results in the adsorption of

" antigenic fragments "

through the

" gastrointestinal mucous membrane "

 

This results in chronic " stimulation " of lymphoid tissue to which

these fragments gain access

 

" Chronic immunological stimulation*causes*lymphomas in laboratory

animals and is believed to cause " lymphoid cancers "

in men. "

 

The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier to

the absorption of food antigens, and

circulating antibodies to food protein is commonplace, especially

potent

" lymphoid stimulants. "

 

Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized " lymphadenopathy "

" hpatosplenomegaly " ,and profound

" adenoid hypertrophy "

It has been conservatively estimated that more

than 100 distinct " antigens "

are released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke

production of all antibody classes

 

[This may explain why

" pasteurized, killed viruses " are still " antigenic "

and can still cause disease.

 

Here's more.

A large prospective study from Norway was reported in the British

Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals

were followed for 11 and a half years).

For most cancers there was no association between the tumor and milk

ingestion.

However, in " lymphoma " there was a strong positive association.

 

If one drank two glasses or more daily (or the

equivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4 times greater than

in persons drinking less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.

 

There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be aware

of. At this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairy

products and are not known to involve man.

 

The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the second

is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first of these diseases,

we hope, is confined to England and causes " cavities "

in the animal's brain.

 

Sheep have long been known to suffer from a disease called scrapie.

It seems to have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep

parts, especially brains, to the British cows.

Now,use your good sense.

 

Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat meat?

This profit-motivated practice backfired and " bovine spongiform

encephalopathy " ,

or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain.

 

The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal and

is 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have been

incinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500

cows are reported as infected each month.

The British public is concerned and

has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000

schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several farmers have

developed a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD

(Creutzfeldt-Jakob-Disease).

But the British Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE to

humans is " remote. "

 

The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of

cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plants

from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited

the importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britain

and claim that the disease does not exist in the United States.

However, there may be a problem.

 

" Downer cows " are animals who arrive at auction yards or slaughter

houses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral or

bacterial diseases to walk.

Thus they are " down. "

 

If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged

by chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if

they are not already dead, they are killed.

Even a " humane " death is usually denied them. They are then turned

into protein food for animals as well as other

preparations.

 

Minks that have been fed this protein have developed a

fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE.

 

Entire

colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in

Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow

virus possible obtained from the ill " downer cows. "

 

The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically

entitled " How Now Mad Cow? " (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-30)

describes cases of BSE in species not previously known to be

affected, such as cats.

They admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform

encephalopathy entered the human food chain in

England between 1986 and 1989. They say. " The result of this

experiment is awaited. " As the incubation period can be up to three

decades, wait we must.

 

The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and

is more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the

human AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the raw

BIV proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive for

HIV.

 

The extent of the virus among American herds is said

be " widespread " . (The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to

see if antibodies to this retrovirus is present).

 

It also has no plans to quarantine the infected animals.

 

As in the case of humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in

cows.

 

Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows infected

with these viruses and no

scientific assurance exists that the products are safe. Eating raw

beef (as in steak Tartar) strikes me as being very risky, especially

after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993.

 

A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October

1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature,

tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection in

human serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus

protein.

 

In addition to this disturbing report, is another from

Russia telling us of the presence of virus proteins related to the

bovine leukemia virus in five of 89 women with breast disease (Acta

Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these

developments are unknown at present.

 

However, it is safe to assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to

" stay " in the animal kingdom.

 

OTHER CANCERS - DOES IT GET WORSE?

 

Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer - a particularly nasty tumor -

was associated with " milk consumption "

by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.

 

Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave

a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users.

This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators.

 

Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School,

analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the 1970s.

Again a significant positive correlation is revealed between ovarian

cancer

and per capita milk consumption.

 

These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the

responsible fraction, and the

digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability

to digest the lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different

emphasis, but the same conclusion.

 

This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130

(5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of the country's

leading institutions, not

the Rodale Press or " Prevention Magazine "

 

Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion?

 

The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again

at Roswell Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer,

April 15, 1989.

 

Persons drinking whole milk three or more times daily had a two-fold

increase in " lungcancer " risk compared to those never drinking whole

milk.

 

For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates for

Japanese men who smoke far more than American or European men, but

who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel

that the total fat intake is the difference.

 

There are not many reports studying an association between milk

ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great

interest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and is

found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989.

 

They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and

comparable control subjects:

 

Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily

had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported never

drinking whole milk the weight of the evidence appears to favor the

hypothesis that " animal fat "

is related to increased risk of prostate cancer.

 

Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in

US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

 

WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows'

milk?

It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than

simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these would

be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source of

amino acids (proteins).

 

Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about

calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect

us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with

calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans?

 

I think not.

These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually

interfere with " calcium absorption " .

Secondly, the excess of " protein "

that the milk provides is a major

cause of the osteoporosis problem.

 

Dr. Hegsted in England has been writing for years about the

geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the

countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably

the countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is a

cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below.

 

Numerous studies have shown that the level of " calcium ingestion "

and

especially calcium supplementation has " no effect " whatever on the

development of osteoporosis.

 

The most important such article appeared recently in the " British

Journal of Medicine "

where the long armof 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 " dietry deficiencies "

of calcium among people living on a natural diet

without milk.

 

For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don't look at calcium, look

at protein.

 

Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally

high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total

calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day.

Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world.

 

The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They

have a 12 percent protein diet, mostly plant protein, and only 200 to

350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake.

 

The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more

children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women

immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis?

 

The answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women.

Thus, there is a genetic difference that is " modified "

by diet.

 

To answer the obvious question, " Well, where do you get your

calcium? "

The answer is: " From exactly the same place the cow gets

the calcium, from green things that grow in the ground, " mainly from

leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge

bones (after

being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do

horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy

plants.

It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live in

harmony with their genetic programming and natural food.

 

Only humans living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

 

If animal references do not convince you, think of the several

billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk.

Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge

group?

 

The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly

the opposite.

 

They have far less than than

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 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 a

source of difficulty.

 

Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I

am aware of.

This is the latest edition (1oth, 1989: 4th printing,

Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by the

National Research Council.

 

Of interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr. Richard

Havel of the University of California in San Francisco.

 

First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily

revised downward in successive editions.

 

The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51

years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical 60

kilogram adult.

 

You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in

adults to by .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large

safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add some

more to " be sure. " )

 

You can " get by " on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary!

Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an ounce and

a half!

 

Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal

protein. Vegetable protein is " identical " for all practical purposes

and has no " cholesterol "

and vastly less saturated fat.

 

(Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must

be carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies.

This is not a realistic concern.)

 

Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and

European people are in a " protein overloaded " state.

This has serious consequences when maintained over decades. The

problems are the

already mentioned osteoporosis, atherosclerosis and kidney damage.

 

There is good evidence that certain " malignancies " ,

chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat intake.

 

Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to fully

point out the dangers of excess protein for the

" kidney tubule "

 

The dangers of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally,

you should know that the protein content of human milk is amount the

lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

 

IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?

Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose?

This is the principal carbohydrate of milk.

 

It seems that nature provides newborns with the enzymatic equipment to

metabolize lactose, but this ability

often extinguishes by age four or five years.

 

What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar?

 

It seems that it is a

" disaccharide " which is too

" large " to be ABSORBED into the bloodstream without

first being broken down into

" monosaccharides " ,

namely galactose and glucose.

 

This requires the presence of an " enzyme " ,

lactase plus additional

enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose.

 

Let's think about his for a moment.

Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and

then shuts off the mechanism.

 

Is Mother Nature trying to tell us something?

 

Clearly all infants must drink milk.

 

The fact that so many adults cannot,seems to be related to the

tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are

not needed.

 

At least half of the adult humans on this earth are

lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent

introduction of dairy herding and the ability to " borrow " milk from

another group of mammals that the survival advantage of preserving

lactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest lactose) became

evident.

 

But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk?

 

After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And

further, why was it just the white or light skinned humans who

retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it?

 

Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent

innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It

clearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold

and relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing became

available.

 

 

Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more

readily than does dark skin.

 

However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fair

skin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from sunlight.

 

If dietary and sunlight

sources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant

calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to humans who

could digest that milk. This seems to be the only logical

explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactose

tolerance when compared to dark skinned people.

 

How does this break down?

 

Certain racial groups, namely African Americans, are up to 90% lactose

intolerant as adults. Caucasians

are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between the

above two groups.

 

Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk

intake in such persons. Most American Indians

cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose

intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million

Americans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had

sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)

 

What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is

all lost? Not at all.

 

It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be

able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar

in this respect.

Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to

splice genes to

alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).

 

One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fiber

content and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation

and bowel disorders.

 

The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in

infants is known to all physicians.

This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for

the " intestinal mucosa " The

pediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritated

intestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as well as

colic, diarrhea and vomiting in cow's milk-sensitive babies.

 

The anemia gets a double push by " loss of blood " and iron as well as

deficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause

of childhood allergy.

 

LOW FAT

One additional topic: the matter of " low fat " milk. A common and

sincere question is: " Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't it? "

 

The answer to this question is that low fat milk ISN'T

" low fat " .

 

 

The term " low fat " is a marketing term used to gull the public.

 

Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as calories! The 2% figure is

also

misleading. This refers to weight.

 

They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87% water!

 

" Well then, killjoy, surely you must approve of non-fat milk! "

I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern is: " What do you

put on your cereal? " )

 

True, there is little or no fat,

but now you have a relative " overburden " of protein and lactose.

 

If there is something that we do not need more of it is another " simple

sugar "

lactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of Americans

are lactose intolerant to boot, as noted.

 

As for protein, as stated earlier, we live in a society that

routinely ingests far more protein than we need.

 

It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominent

cause of osteoporosis.

 

Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest non-gmo soy milk,

rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute.

If you're still concerned about calcium, Eden and " Westsoy " is

formulated to have the same " calcium concentration "

as milk.

 

SUMMARY

To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use

milk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we

like it and because it has become a part of our culture. Because we

have become accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like the

way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very best

they could for us and provided milk in our earliest training and

conditioning.

They taught us to like it.

 

And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it

described " to die for " .

 

I had one patient who did exactly that.

 

He had no obvious vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didn't eat

meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting

one; but he had a passion.

You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream.

 

A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration for him. On many

occasions he would eat an entire quart - and yes there were some cookies

and other pastries.

Good ice cream deserves this after all.

 

He seemed to be in good health despite some expected " middle age

spread " when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed,

miserable and helpless,

and he had additional strokes and died several years later never

having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit.

 

Was he old? I don't think so.

He was in his 50s.

 

So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the

scientific evidence that it does not " do a body good. "

 

Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's nutritional value and

safety.

Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without

cows' milk. You can too.

 

It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since

childhood to think of milk as " nature's most perfect food. " I'll

guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health and it won't

cost anything.

 

What can you lose?

 

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

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

DietaryTi-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Genes

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.