THE MILK LETTER : A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS

Robert M. Kradjian, MD

Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery,

Seton Medical Centre #302 – 1800 Sullivan Ave.

Daly City, CA 94015 USA

“MILK” Just the word itself sounds comforting! “How about a nice cup of

hot milk?” The last time you heard that question it was from someone who

cared for you–and you appreciated their effort.

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

emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first food. If we

were fortunate it was our mother’s milk. A loving link, given and taken.

It was the only path to survival. If not mother’s milk it was cow’s milk

or soy milk “formula”–rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk.

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

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

several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds of “dairy

products” such as cheese, butter, and yogurt.

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

healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear messages

that assure us that, “Milk is good for your body.” Our dieticians insist

that: “You’ve got to have milk, or where will you get your calcium?”

School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will

have milk added. And if that isn’t enough, our nutritionists told us for

years that dairy products make up an “essential food group.” Industry

spokesmen made sure that colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of

milk and other essential nutrients were made available at no cost for

schools. Cow’s milk became “normal.”

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

planet Earth today do not drink or use cow’s milk. Further, most of them

can’t drink milk because it makes them ill.

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

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

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

number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets

altogether. Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk

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

the mammals, only humans–and then only a minority, principally

Caucasians–continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

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?

(Article courtesty of Dr. Kradjian and http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILKDOC.HTM)

Related articles

• Does Milk Cause Acne? (acneeinstein.com)
• A Joyful Weaning: Embracing a Dairy-Free Life (eatdrinkbetter.com)