Blog: BUNNYpants and SIPPYcup - Eclectic Menagerie by Aharleygyrl
Cow's Milk, Almond Milk, Rice Milk, Soy Milk?
With recent news about the price of milk on the rise to unprecedented costs, I decided to post this "deadly poison" information about milk. Why pay even more than ever just to get sick?
Date: 9/28/2007 9:17:15 AM ( 10 y ) ... viewed 28491 times
When I grew up, milk was a
staple. Everyone had it, even the family who ate health food and were
eccentric. It is hard to believe that Curezonians would drink milk, as
they are more informed than the general public. Now, Dr. Mercola of
mercola.com, believes raw cow's milk or goat's milk is ok and actually healthy.
I believe we can get those nutrients elsewhere and click here for raw milk info. Milk doesn't have hardly
any vitamin D. It has to be added (fortified). Milk also is a poor source of calcium. But, high amounts calcium actually interferes with absorption of calcium anyway, which can actually cause osteoporosis. Furthermore, milk is protein and protein inhibits calcium absorption. Every baby who drinks milk, whether it be cow or human or other, their own mother produces the kind of milk they need. I am sure you have heard "cow's milk is for baby cows" by the milk opponents. Well, it is true
and there is science behind it. Many doctors say cow's milk leads to
lactose intolerance, while pointing out we are the only species to drink another
species' milk and we are the only species to drink milk past babyhood.
But if that isn't enough to scare you, 60% of the cows in America have the Leukemia virus. 80% have paratuberculosis, which many scientists believe is the cause of Functional Dyspepsia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Crohn's Disease.
Robert M. Kradjian, Breast Surgery Chief of California's
Seton Medical Center, thinks three glasses is too
much. In fact, he thinks you shouldn't drink any
milk at all. After systematically reviewing the archives of medical and
scientific journals, his findings were "slightly
less than horrifying."
No, don't drink soy milk, i'll
post about it later. The beans are acid washed in aluminum vats and the
funny taste you get in soy milk is from the retention of that aluminum.
The only safe soy for humans to consume is fermented soy, because the
anti-nutrient properties are mostly removed by the processing.
Years ago, when I found out about
milk, I quit. I had heard about the book: Milk, the deadly poison.
That was enough for me. At first I drank soy milk, but researched it and
quickly disposed of it. Then, I discovered almond milk, and later, rice
milk. I began using almond milk is all recipes just like it were milk.
It works perfect. In some things you would want to use rice milk because
almond milk has a distinct flavor and you can taste it in some recipes.
Rice milk is a bit too sweet for me, so I use it less often. The only
brand I buy is Pacific, in both almond and rice, because they taste best.
Almond breeze tastes funny to me.
You may wish you didn't:
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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.
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;
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
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
(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;
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 Â"liquid meatÂ" 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
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
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
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
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
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
(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, don't look at calcium, look at protein.
Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high
protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high
calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the
world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a
12 percent protein diet, mostly 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 guys"" 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
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
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...rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. ....
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
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 courtesy of Dr. Kradjian)
MILK: A DEADLY POISON According to the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), in 1994 the average American ate 586 pounds of milk and dairy products,
394 pounds of vegetables, 121 pounds of fresh fruit, 199 pounds of meat and 193
pounds of products containing flour and cereal. That totals to over four pounds
of food per day per person and nearly forty percent of that is milk and dairy,
one very lopsided food pyramid!
peptide, Transferrin, Lactoferrin, Casomorphin and Erythropoietin
In Short... Growth hormones, fat, cholesterol, allergenic proteins, blood, pus,
antibiotics, bacteria, virus and more as it is sponsored, in part, by Monsanto,
WestAgro, and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc..
Did you know that...
* Milk is the foundation of heart disease and the explanation for America's
number one killer.
Milk is the reason that one out of six American women will develop cancer of the
breast. Twenty-five million American women over the age of forty have been
diagnosed with bone crippling arthritis and osteoporosis. These females have
been drinking in excess of two pounds of milk per day for their entire adult
lives. Why are their doctors blind to the fact that drinking milk does not
prevent osteoporosis? Calcium in milk is not adequately absorbed and milk
consumption is the probable cause of osteoporosis. Milk is responsible for
allergies, colic, colitis, earaches, colds and congestion in young children.
Research indicates that one bovine protein in milk destroys theinsulin-producing
beta cells of the pancreas, causing diabetes. Sixty Percent of America's dairy
cows have leukemia virus. Is it wise to eat the flesh or drink body fluids from
diseased animals? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used to allow a small
amount of antibiotics in milk. FDA scientists recognized that consumers should
not be drinking a fluid containing antibiotics. In 1990, the one part per
hundred-million antibiotic residue in milk standardwas increased by one-hundred
times to one part per million. As a result, new strains of bacteria developed,
immune to the 52 different antibiotics found in milk. Antibiotics no longer work
because Americans have been drinking milk and eating dairy productscontaining
increased amounts of these powerful drugs and, in addition, new strains of
emerging diseases. Beer bellies are indeed making a comeback in America.
According to the Food Consumption, Prices and Expenditures, 1996, Statistical
Bulletin Number 928, published by the USDA, the average American consumed 24
gallons of beer in 1994. That works out to less than 8 1/2 ounces of beer per
day. Total milk and dairy products consumed per capita in 1994 equaled 26 ounces
per day, more than triple the amount of beer. One 12 ounce glass of beer
contains 144 calories and no fat. On the other hand, a 12 ounce glass of milk
contains 300 calories and 16 grams of fat. It seems that beer is taking a bad
rap. Protruding stomachs on overweight people should be called milk bellies, not
When we drink milk we are taking in the most powerful growth hormone naturally
produced in our own bodies. However, this growth hormone in milk is safeguarded
by naturally occurring mechanisms unique to milk. That hormone is called
Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and it is identical (70 amino acids, same
gene sequence) in cows and humans
(Milk: The Deadly Poison by Robert Cohen 317 pages containing 336 references
NATURE'S PERFECT FOOD? A SECOND OPINION!
Julian Whitaker, MD, is the founder and editor of the largest read health
newsletter in the world, Health & Healing. This month his lead topic is MILK and
the ANTIDAIRY Coalition. Here are pages 1-4 of Dr. Whitaker's 8-page newsletter.
I heartily recommend that you consider subscribing. Whitaker's alternative
medicine advice is right on the money and 532,000+ monthly readers have
benefited from his brilliant recommendations. Call 1-800-539-8219 to subscribe!
(12 issues - $39.95 per year)