Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....?

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

nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question

it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated

their effort.

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is

surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was

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

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

only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's

milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or

water buffalo milk.

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

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

We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and

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

butter, and yogurt.

Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring

images of healthy, beautiful people on our television

screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good

for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to

have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School

lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal

will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our

nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up

an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that

colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other

essential nutrients were made available at no cost for

schools. Cow's milk became "normal."

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

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

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

makes them ill.

There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive

of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the

March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

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

the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy

products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds

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

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

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

Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

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

answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust

any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are

they simply repeating what their professors learned years

ago? What about the new voices urging caution?

I believe that there are three reliable sources of

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

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

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

literature on the subject of milk.

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

1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk

recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of

theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is

no lack of scientific information on this subject. I

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

that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and

inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly

less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors

spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side

effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to

believe by the industry. The main focus of the published

reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal

irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions

in infants and children as well as infections such as

salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with

bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as

concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by

blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of

chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among

children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar

infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic

and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed

centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,

sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,

lymphoma and cancer.

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

of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living

mammals and what happens with human groups living in close

to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and

interesting group to study. Here we are limited to

speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains

available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt

whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,

muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),

and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel

that these people are not important for us to study,

consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in

almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to

100,000 years ago.

WHAT IS MILK?

Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term

nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.

Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk

for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the

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

to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar

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

just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and

teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature

only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not

possible for animals living in a natural state to continue

with the drinking of milk after weaning.

IS ALL MILK THE SAME?

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

settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size,

and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems

'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our

customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of

another species of mammal?

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

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

the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly

some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm

not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is

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

calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly,

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

judgement on this one.

Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal

is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of

that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in

protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has

five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is

markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to

human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as

much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.

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

simply is not designed for humans.

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

only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative

composition that is critical for the very best in health and

growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical

doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the

crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop

its unique specializations.

Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological

development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not

have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle

groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the

demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's

hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material

for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.

Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it

can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992

(Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly

placed premature infants into two groups. One group received

a proper formula, the other group received human breast

milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children

were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing,

the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well,

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

rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph

Holman described an infant who developed profound

neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous

fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid -

just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha

linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the

neurological disorders cleared.

In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and

Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem

in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.

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

that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency

syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s

pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas

without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research,

the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem.

Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is

markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.

WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE

Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000

pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000

pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics,

hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding;

that's how.

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

growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is

supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to

Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the

milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn,

Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there

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

the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned

BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with

adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules

usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but

I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth

hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked

increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then,

requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the

antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is

uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt

that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk.

A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed

to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling

would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is

awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can

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

burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any

surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support

price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757

million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on

average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer

Reports, May 1992: 330-32).

Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This

includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones.

Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are

simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be

horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from

one to one and a half million white blood cells per

millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't

already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to

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

call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is

it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally,

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

United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that

the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the

public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only

4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.

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

claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still

think that milk is the safest product we have."

Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the

following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were

contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This

from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The

Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in

Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate

(Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).

What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found

few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When

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

of the milk samples showed drug traces.

Let's focus in on this because itÂ’s critical to our

understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a

disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so

drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the

relatively high level. A more powerful test called the

'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per

billion.

One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are

forever getting infections around the udder that require

ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us

that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears

in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the

University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk',

milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis

of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow

cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff.

Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has

mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, itÂ’s in the

study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages

containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.

IT GETS WORSE

Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge

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

contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the

sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it--

dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are

concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of

interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had

only half the levels of contamination).

A recent report showed an increased concentration of

pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer

when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic

disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature

describe problems. Just scan these titles:

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

Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced

Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906

3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in

Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15

There are many others. There are dozens of studies

describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in

children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk

allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are

transmitted to the infant.

A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of

Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in

infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to

provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used

before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its

use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre

Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation,

cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in

infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-

borne infections and contaminants, and said:

Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of

uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole

bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole

milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't

it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human

nutrition to come to an end?

In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:

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

infant in the first year of life because of its association

with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron

that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a

day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal

bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.

I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be

consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose

intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of

atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.

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

pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he

articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for

the first two years of life. Here is his quotation:

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

the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk

is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence

of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous

and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a

study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it

will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or

economic profit involved.

OTHER PROBLEMS

Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination.

Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be

traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major

problem and some folks want to go back to those times by

insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This

is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of

all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983

were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old

brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More

about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is

still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne

diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association

(251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections

caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk.

This is despite safety precautions.

All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A

Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive

correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein

and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data

from various countries. Conversely a possible negative

relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3

months and diabetes risk.".

Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had

higher levels of serum antibodies to cowsÂ’ milk (Diabetes

Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from

this study:

We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption

is altered in children who will have insulin dependent

diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to

proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of

their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than

normal.

The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating

study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile

insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have

migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times

greater in the English group compared to children remaining

in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase?

The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great

Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the

availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan

as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the

same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe

that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about

adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is

strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic

predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all

in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered

to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant

are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the

last article concluded that the cooler climate in England

altered viruses and caused the very real increase in

diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top

admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to

do with the disease.

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

Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported

in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital

for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers.

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

product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin

dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children

out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per

1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against

the milk protein during the first year of life, the

researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas

in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in

people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142

Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found

that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies

against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear

evidence that the children had a raging auto immune

disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400

children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will

receive no dairy products during the first nine months of

life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a

definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of

the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the

breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or

the results will be confounded by the transmission of the

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

was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very

interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the

association says: "It does not mean that children should

stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should

withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good

protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein"

that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy

industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association

in the past?

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

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

found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United

States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds.

Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large

percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95

per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation--

if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk

is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples

the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I

sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully

monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981;

213:1014).

This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany

deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of

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

the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and

Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from

their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader

in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We

are the worst in the world with the former exception of

Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist

who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a

Master's degree in Public Health.

As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by

pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl

like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in

April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an

accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized

milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed,

killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the

question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this:

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

were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully

active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be

fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases

blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports

of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in

the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern

California.

What happens to other species of mammals when they are

exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question

and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals

exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep,

goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and

chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion

(both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in

milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts

to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human

cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody

formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing.

How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to

humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured

particles?

If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we

could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to

have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so?

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

South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically

higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In

Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine

leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human

leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher

rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers

have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research

shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains

access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the

intestinal wall.

An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana

from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance

of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the

economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they

noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows

with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia

produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis

(increased white blood cell count), the production fell off.

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

bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does

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

keep it under control? You can get the details on this

business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb.

1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university

department feels that this is an economic and not a human

health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of

Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the

political pressures are too great. You're on you own.

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

producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it

can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related

cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:

1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and

Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112

(1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a

Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the

Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A

Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal

Infant. 75:182-186; 1985

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

years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had

3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs.

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

One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from

Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the

Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is

entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many

people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham

agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption

in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956.,

in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were

highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by

Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest

and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New

Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold

difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a

startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in

Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this,

confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in

migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of

lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to

the USA)!

An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built

at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the

spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human

consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift

from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the

idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.

Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation

between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion

in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his

article follow:

The average intake of protein in many countries is far in

excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive

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

causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.

Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of

antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous

membrane.

This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to

which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological

stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is

believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The

gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier

to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating

antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent

lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce

generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and

profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively

estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released

by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production

of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized,

killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause

disease.

Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was

reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9,

March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11

and a half years). For most cancers there was no association

between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma,

there was a strong positive association. If one drank two

glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products),

the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking

less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.

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

aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by

the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man.

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

second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first

of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and

causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been

known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to

have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep

parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your

good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat

meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine

spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept

Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the

unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date,

over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in

keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are

reported as infected each month. The British public is

concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per

cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to

children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease

syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-

Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that

transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."

The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the

feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced

at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected

sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle

and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the

disease does not exist in the United States. However, there

may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at

auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated,

dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to

walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to

electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to

dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they

are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death

is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein

food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that

have been fed this protein have developed a fatal

encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire

colonies of minks have been lost in this manner,

particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective

agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the

ill "downer cows."

The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically

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

30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known

to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce

contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered

the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They

say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the

incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.

The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United

States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely

related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do

not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the

sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the

virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The

USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if

antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no

plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of

humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day

we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with

these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the

products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare)

strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle

E. coli deaths of 1993.

A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research,

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

Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They

report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to

a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this

disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the

presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia

virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica

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

developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to

assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in

the animal kingdom.

OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?

Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty

tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at

Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.

Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent

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

They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce

the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by

numerous investigators.

Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical

School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the

1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed

between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption.

These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk

is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is

facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the

lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis,

but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the

American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989.

These articles come from two of the country's leading

institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.

Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion?

The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569

controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the

International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons

drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold

increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never

drinking whole milk.

For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates

for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or

European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in

this research area feel that the total fat intake is the

difference.

There are not many reports studying an association between

milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though

was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park

Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,

1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer

patients and comparable control subjects:

Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole

milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who

reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the

evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is

related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate

cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and

is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

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

drink cows' milk?

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

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

these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and

it's a source of amino acids (proteins).

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

about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones

and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it,

milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source

for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive

amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium

absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk

provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H

egsted in England has been writing for years about the

geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the

countries with the highest intake of dairy products are

invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He

feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be

given below.

Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium

ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no

effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most

important such article appeared recently in the British

Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry

can't reach. Another study in the United States actually

showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal

women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.

(Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of

hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in

particular protein intake, are critically important. Another

observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note

the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium

among people living on a natural diet without milk.

For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look at

calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting

groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake

estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a

high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is

among the worst in the world. The other instructive group

are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent

protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350

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

have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more

children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When

African women immigrate to the United States, do they

develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are

much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic

difference that is modified by diet.

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

calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the

cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the

ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants

and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by

eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals

also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all

of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with

their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans

living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

If animal references do not convince you, think of the

several billion humans on this earth who have never seen

cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be

prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest

this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far

less than that seen in the countries where dairy products

are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,

but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are

grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing

on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play

a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a

deterrent to good bone health.

THE PROTEIN MYTH

Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to

"make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the

nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course

milk is fitted right in.

As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein-

-"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily

what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty.

Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

For this information we rely on the most authoritative

source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,

1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary

Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of

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

Richard Havel of the University of California in San

Francisco.

First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been

steadily revised downward in successive editions. The

current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19

through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day

for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know

that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by

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

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

some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams

a day if necessary!

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

ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not

have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical

for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly

less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated

belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to

avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)

Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and

European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has

serious consequences when maintained over decades. The

problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,

atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence

that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are

related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent

renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the

dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers

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

should know that the protein content of human milk is amount

the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?

Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal

carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-

borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose,

but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.

What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems

that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed

into the blood stream without first being broken down into

monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires

the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes

to break down the galactose into glucose.

Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the

ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts

off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us

something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact

that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the

tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not

needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are

lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent

introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow"

milk from another group of mammals that the survival

advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us

to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be

advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the

human beings in the history of the world did. And further,

why was it just the white or light skinned humans who

retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to

lose it?

Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly

recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000

years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration

of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins

and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the

production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does

dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to

sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide

the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources

were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant

calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to

humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only

logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high

degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned

people.

How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely

blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults.

Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are

midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and

abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake

in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk.

The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays

intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A

lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of

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

What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy

products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is

largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy

your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar

in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed

this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the

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

One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of

fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to

constipation and bowel disorders.

The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding

in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from

its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the

intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with

articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding,

increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and

vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a

double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency

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

childhood allergy.

LOW FAT

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

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

it?"

The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low

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

public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as

calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to

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

water!

"Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat

milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern

is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little

or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein

and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more

of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose

and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to

boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live

in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we

need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys,

and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry

cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond

milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned

about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same

calcium concentration as milk.

SUMMARY

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

or use milk products. That is just because we simply want

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

our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste

and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our

throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for

us and provided milk in our earliest training and

conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably

the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described

"to die for".

I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious

vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didnÂ’t eat meat, his

diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting

one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice

cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration

for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart -

and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice

cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good

health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had

a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and

helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several

years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation

unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.

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

of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body

good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's

nutritional value and safety.

Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully

without cows' milk. You can too.

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

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

I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health

and it won't cost anything. What can you lose?