By Stewart N. Thorpe of Citizen Press Revolution
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Stop consuming dairy products now greatly reduces the risk of ovarian, breast, colon, and gastrointestinal cancers, osteoporosis, calcium deficiency, diabetes mellitus in children, heart disease, and atherosclerosis. Common delayed allergic reactions to dairy products include abdominal pain, eczema (skin rash), joint pain, gas, bloating, migraine headache, asthma, acne, fatigue, runny nose, diabetes, and immune dysfunction. Because people's allergic reactions to dairy products are delayed in the onset, you may be allergic without being aware of it.
A Surgeon General Warning for milk? You laugh, you roll your eyes, you look at these printed words as if I am completely gone raving mad.
I have the backing of respected and established medical and scientific institutions to support these claims. I have a study, for instance, that was pooled analysis of over a half million women. I can beat even that though with the support of the largest study of diet and disease in medical history.
So how come you didn’t know about the adverse affects of milk and how it can actually give you weak bones rather than strong ones?
One answer could be $110 million dollars. Another answer, also right, is $190 million dollars. This is how much the dairy industry spent in 1996 and 1998 respectively to keep milk hip, to push the message of strong bones and osteoporosis prevention inside almost every popular magazine, in as many strategically placed television commercials, into the posters of celebrities with milk mustaches hanging inside classrooms or on your own room’s walls. Never mind the truth. Never mind the increased risks in heart disease, diabetes, four kinds of cancer, or the increased risks that milk is supposed to prevent: calcium deficiency and osteoporosis. Milk does your body good. Never mind the truth.
Thanks also to spending millions of visible dollars to politicians each year and having the backing of a government agency (I’ll get to this in a second), the dairy industry has been able to deliberately and intentionally drown out medical and health findings that run contrary to the message of its advertising campaigns for strong bones.
A few of these studies I am referring to are by established, professional, and respected institutions such as (to name a few): the China-Oxford Cornell Study from the Cornell University (the largest study of diet and disease in medical history), the International Journal of Health Services, the Harvard School of Public Health, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. In fact, in February 1995, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine lodged a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, stating that ads for milk and milk products are deceptive.
The tobacco industry got a lot of flack and heat when it publicly denied that their products can cause cancer and heart disease. Having ads saying that milk is good for strong bones and prevents osteoporosis is just as false as saying that cigarettes aren’t addictive and that cigarettes are not linked with cancer. Likewise, the dairy industry refuses to acknowledge that its products can lead to greatly increased risks of, for instance, ovarian cancer (with a 19% increase if you follow the classical three or more dairy servings recommended by the government funded “food pyramid”), weak bones, and heart disease (again, to name just a few).
The government of the
United States has also inadvertently been supporting this false advertising of the dairy industry. A major force behind the Milk Mustache campaign, for instance, is the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board (Fluid Board) which according to a government report, was created with the objective of strengthening the position of the dairy industry in the marketplace.
The Fluid Board is administered by the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which runs types programs for dairy, as well as other commodity items. The marketing activity consists of generic advertising and also to fund research and “educational” activities to promote dairy consumption. In a 1996 report by the USDA Economic Research Service, generic advertising raised fluid milk sales an estimated 1.0 billion pounds, or 4.4 percent, during September 1993-August 1994. Anyone in marketing can tell you that a 4.4 percent increase in sells for one year is quite successful especially for an industry that has historically been dropping in sells for the past fifty years.
The influence and power of money possesses in mainstream media is impressive when the truth becomes an economic liability to corporations or the government.
The mainstream media (and the press) is restrained by its needs to not hurt its advertisers’ stock shares and they also beg for the money from such industries such as the dairy industry. In a recent marketing extravaganza, for instance, the Fluid Board joined up with Seventeen magazine to create a Milk Mustache contest. More than 3,000 teenagers applied to create the next hip Milk Mustache photo.
More telling is that when FOX journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, learned of the cancer-causing effect of Bovine Growth Hormone injected into dairy cows, they had set up the story to be broadcast. BGH-maker Monsanto learned of this and pressured their exeutives to violate the whistleblowers' act and fire the journalists and pull the story's plug.
To make matters harder for the truth to speak out, the dairy industry contributions for 2002 year alone to politicians totaled almost $3 million, and that's just the portion which was over the table. Meanwhile, the dairy industry has an entire government agency in its pocket with the sole purpose to strengthen the dairy industry’s position in the market. This government agency has its marketing and “educational” efforts for the dairy industry also “reimbursed” by the dairy industry. This is a definite conflict of interest that can be noted there.
I have yet to see a single response that can refute a pooled analysis of over a half million women showing that the food pyramid’s suggestion of three servings of dairy causes a 19% increase in risk for ovarian cancer. I have yet to see a thorough response and detailed or precise rebuttal to the China-Oxford Cornell Study, the largest study of diet and disease in medical history (I don’t think that can be over-emphasized) which shows that a high calcium intake and a high animal protein intake (milk has both, by the way) being not just linked to degenerative diseases, but a primary cause of degenerative diseases.
More than $100 billion a year is poured into corporate advertising. The advertisers' power to dictate the content of what we see as news and entertainment grows steadily more each year. Corporations will almost always serve their own interest before they serve the public interest and have historically demonstrated to also serve their own interest at the expense of the public’s welfare. This is why we need a free press that is free from serving the interests of corporations and their stock shares.
This is why we must fight the corporate power over the media.
Milk is something that has a high chance of being in your refrigerator right now, and it is just another example of why alternative journalism is needed now more than ever.
Medical and Health Explanations of Why Milk Does a Body Bad
Dairy products are some of the most likely foods to cause adverse affects in adults and children.
A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health that had the pooled analysis of 12 prospective cohort studies with a total of 553,217 women, of whom 2,132 developed ovarian cancer. There was a 19% increase in risk for ovarian cancer for those consuming more than 30 grams of lactose per day, or, in other words, three or more servings of dairy milk.
During the digestive process, lactose produces glucose and galactose. Galactose has toxic effects for the ovaries of some women, particularly those who do not readily metabolize and eliminate it. As a direct result of having the food pyramid of three servings of dairy or more a day, a woman thus has a 19% increase in risk of ovarian cancer.
Risks for weakened bones, calcium deficiency, and osteoporosis are also increased with intakes of milk. How can that be, you ask?
Cow's milk is very high in phosphorus and protein. Elevated phosphorus levels make it very difficult for calcium assimilation. The excessive protein in milk can also cause the blood to become too acidic. To buffer this rise in acid, the body pulls off the calcium stored in the bones, a process known as calcium leaching. And the greater a person's protein intake, the higher their calcium losses will be, and this calcium leaching will continue unabated unless the protein consumption is reduced (in other words drinking more and more milk won't stop the calcium leaching from your bones but increase it).
Milk’s high excess of cholesterol and saturated fat are also two things which are the top causes of atherosclerosis (the hardening of arteries) and heart disease. Even so-called low-fat 1% milk is misleading; a cup of milk doesn’t sound so bad, but times it by three and four servings each day. Just in your milk alone, never mind all of the junk food (and other dairy products) you eat, you will have a third of the saturated fat you should have in a day (and this is with low-fat milk).
Many people are incapable of digesting cow's milk after the infancy stage due to a lack of a digestive enzyme called lactase. In some populations, this decline doesn’t begin until the early 20s, so if you haven’t been affected adversely by milk yet, you still most likely will. Lactose intolerance, after all, affects 70% of the human population. And most people aren’t even aware that they are allergic as milk is a delayed food allergy whose effects aren’t noticeable right away from intake.
Cow's milk may also be responsible for an auto-immune response that leads to diabetes mellitus in children. Studies of one of the proteins in cow's milk, bovine serum albumin (BSA), have indicated that BSA may instigate an auto-immune response that leads to the destruction of the beta cells of the pancreas.
A recent study of BGH (bovine growth hormone, found in milk) is published in the International Journal of Health Services. The study, authored by Samuel Epstein, M.D., professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Illinois, Chicago, shows that BGH may well promote breast, colon, and gastrointestinal cancer in humans.
Calcium intake is important during early childhood and does influence bone mass, but a variety of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds--such as broccoli, turnip greens, carrots, spinach, cauliflower, kale, onions, almonds and filberts--are excellent sources of calcium.
People are actually perfectly healthy consuming between 400-500 milligrams of calcium a day. Research of people in countries with a lower animal calcium intake (less than 500 mgs/day) reveals that they have a significantly lower bone fracture rate when compared to countries with the highest intake of animal calcium intake, such as the USA (more than 1,200 mgs/day). The Bantu women of
Africa may have as many as 10 children in their lifetime and consume little or no dairy, yet osteoporosis and tooth decomposition are extremely rare in their population.
So, think about this: more calcium will be absorbed from a cup of broccoli than from a cup of milk. And think about this: where do the cows get their calcium?
They get it from eating greens.
Related Links and Sources
Chicago Tribune - Not Milk? - Julie Deardorff
Dairy Industry Propaganda - By Michele Simon
Dairy or Not - Milk Myths Busted
Drink Milk - Udder Propaganda
Journalists' BHG Suit - Media Cover Up*
LA Weekly - Government's Dairy Advice Questioned
PCRM - filed suit for deceptive milk ads
Politics & Economics of Food
The Politics of Meat and Dairy
Calcium & Milk
Calcium and Protein: A Mixture for Disaster
China Study II
WebMD - more milk facts
What's Wrong with Dairy Products?
Why is American Milk Banned in Europe?
* After I wrote this article, I watched The Corporation. This media cover up over BHG in milk and the censoring and firing of the FOX journalists is inside this recommended film.
Wonderful article, Stewart. And you can add a few other concerns, such as bovine leukemia and bovine AIDS found in the US dairy herds. The most comprehensive look at the myriad health problems associated with humans relying on the milk of another species, is a mind-blowing 500 page book written by Dr. Joseph Keon (The Truth about Breast Cancer). Although it is still 3 months out from release, with over 1300 citations for studies that support such concerns as you have expressed above, there has never been anything like it published before. I think the title is Whitewash.
Bovine AIDS? I'll have to definitely look into that and keep my eyes out for Keon's book. Thanks for the pointers. 1300 citations? The irritating truth is that some people will still shrug it off because they prefer to preserve their unhealthy habits rather than to do something as radical as change.
I enjoy milk and have never had a problem with it. I like it in my cereal, ice cold with cookies, poured into my oatmeal, used to dip graham crackers in.....just about anything. I'm sick and tired of hearing what food can do to us. Bottom line, nobody really knows and we are ALL different. Yeah, some people are "intolerant". So avoid it. I won't spend my life worrying about what this or what that can or will do to me. Life is short, I'm going to eat and drink what I want and die of whatever, whenever.....but die with no regrets.......like never drinking milk again, or inspecting my food with a magnifying class before I consume.
I think you might have missed the boat that the article was on.
The only response you put forth is that you don't care about your health risks. That's fine, but other people DO care about their health risks. And the cover up about these health risks is literally harming people.
The dairy industry is deliberately lying about the health benefits of milk. As a result, dieticians, some doctors, physicians, etc will be prescribing a product for their patients and clients to counteract certain degenerative diseases when this product will actually increase those same degenerative diseases.
Don't you think you and the public deserves to know this?
This goes way, way beyond "intolerance". This goes to increased risks of things such as diabetes and asthma attacks to four kinds of cancer and to weakened bones. This isn't small stuff.
Yea! your article. As a Naturopath I have been telling my clients for the past 15 years to cut out or reduce their dairy intake by 9/10ths. Exactly, where do cows get their calcium? not from milk! They, like all animals are weaned and never touch the stuff again. Obesity and constipation is not caused by inactivity, it is caused by the thich shake after breakfast and the cheese lunch and the ice-cream and custard for desert after the cream sauce and pasta etc.etc.....Australia is one of the highest consuming dairy country's in the
world. We also have the highest incidence of osteoporosis, asthma, obesity, cancers...............Dosen't moderation mean once a week or less. There are so many other goodies to choose from that actually reduce the above mentioned risks. Maybe it's just ignorance that kills people, not growth hormones, preservatives, flavour enhancers, artificial sweeteners and colours, all that occur right along the food chain.
Hey, Stewart!
It was good to see you on the train. As you can see, I found your blog.
One thought... Many people will come to this from some type of search engine. These people are those who want quick information. The easier you can make it for them to get information, the happier they will be. If any of the sources you reference in your article have an online presence, then I would make sure that there are some live links in your post to those sources.
Nicely done!
Mike Broschinsky
Yes, when I was web publishing this article, I was thinking that it was a wee too long, but I couldn't cut out anything either. I am thinking of splitting it into two articles and have them link to each other instead. I also was intending to publish a list of all the resources I found on the internet, but I was exhausted and just wanted the article out. After I met you last night, I actually already backtracked many of the resources into a list. I will be giving this article a rebirth -- and with a little more very interesting information I have a come across too.
these studies come out every few years damning pretty much everything you eat, drink or otherwise ingest. even plain old water comes under attack occassionally. its a fact that in the end end life will indeed kill you.
until then its broccoli, turnip greens, carrots, spinach, cauliflower, kale, onions, almonds, and filberts, all grown on fields that were once wasted, square foot-wise - on grazing cattle and amber waves of grain. i mention grain because people working with it can actually develop allergic reactions to its dust. of course, allergies are proven to be caused by the practice of vaccination, so they're next to be eliminated. nothing left but the avian bird flu to worry about anyway, but it would disappear once we stop eating chickens.
egg protein can be evil. peanuts. gold for jimmy carter, death for others allergic to its oils.
so many questions: i suppose simple crop rotation easily replenishes the soils' minerals?
lastly, our bones only break if we americans move strenuously. when does that ever happen?
Just because it seems everything can be bad for you, doesn't mean that it isn't important to be informed, especially if you are at risks of developing degenerative diseases such as ovarian cancer or osteoporosis (which I only learned how to spell right after researching for this article). If you are genetically at risk for certain diseases or conditions, you have a right to know what products will help you. You especially have the right to know if the products are said to help you to prevent those conditions when they will actually accelerate it. It might mean nothing to you, but if you were at risk of osteoporosis from your family history, so you drank lots of milk regularly, you would probably be mad as hell when you got old and your bones were much more worse off. This is the permanent quality of your life, after all, something you have to live with every single second that you are awake.
I think just about anything in large quantities is bad for you. I happen to love milk. Everythign has some sort of effect and it seems that the good out weigh the bad. There are many peopel who don't drink milk and since ccalcium is so important, why not publicize and try to get kids to drink it?
Why not drink calcium for milk? As my article details, the content of cow's milk can actually LEAD to calcium deficiency and osteoporosis. The content of milk causes the body to do a process of calcium leeching from your bones itself leaving you with weaker bones. Also, the high phosphorous content of milk makes it more difficult for the body to absorb calcium. Maybe I didn't make this clear, but milk is not a good source of calcium. A cup of broccoli will have more calcium absorbed from it than a cup of milk.
Oh good greif. My grandfather worked in the sun every day of his life, ate bacon, eggs, biscuits, and jam for breakfast each day, and drinks milk by the quart. He is 93 years old, living indepently, and relicensed to drive. One can only hope the phase where everything that was once good for you but is now bad will just go back to being good, cause it confuses the crap outta me.
industrial ag is killing us. cows feed growth hormones, grains,and antibiotics last about 2 years tops before they are retired because of burn-out. instead of pumping up production the dairy industry should promote grass fed, free range, bgh free and low bacteria counts.raw milk from cows using sustainable methods is one of the finest foods available.pasturized milk is man's failed attempt to increase shelf life and profit.the end result being a product devoid of nutrition.
Where do people come from?
It's probably a good thing that I don't drink milk then. I just don't get it though. It's kind of weird because my whole life I've been told that I should drink it, and now I'm learning that it could lead to diseases and pain. I'm sure it depends on what kind of milk it is and how it reacts to your body. You never know with all of the artificial stuff they are using these days.
Milk is milk. Even without the injected hormones, anti-biotics, and the other chemicals they add after the milk is, well, milked, the high animal protein and phosphorous combination is constant in all types of milk. The lactose that milk is mainly composed of is also in all milk. These two facts by themselves means that calcium leeching, inhibited calcium intake by the body, and a 19% increase risk in Ovarian Cancer is universal in all milk. The fact that the majority of the human race is lactose intolerant and have an assort of delayed allergic (and sometimes serious) reactions to it is also in all lactose milk.
Everythin on this world is killing us. If we eat meat its bad for us, if we don't eat meat its bad for us. Milk is bad. everything we do is going to kill us. So why don't we just all do what we want and have a good time doing it.
But i do have to give you your props. It was a very well written article
This is a mistake in thinking. People in Rome use to use lead in their make-up. This had tremendous health risks as you might imagine. There are certain proven facts: milk can lead to calcium leeching and increased bone fractures. A cup of vegetables will more likely have more calcium absorbed and will not lead to calcium leeching. Meat happens to be a poor source of protein as it is difficult to digest. Nuts, fruits, and vegetables are a better source of protein despite what urban myths might tell you. These things have been measured. For the record, as a regular plasma donor, my protein levels became significantly and dramatically healthier when I stopped eating meat. Disregard for scientific studies won't mean it won't effect you. Just try, for example, steadily not drinking milk or eating meat, eating much more vegetables, fruits, and nuts, see how you feel. Find out for yourself.
When my dad was little, the surgeon general came out with a warning: that cranberrys give you cancer!
OH MY GOODNESS!! who would have thunk it? So needless to say no one bought cranberry sauce at thanksgiving, the cranberry industry plummeted and soon the surgeon general told us that in order to get cancer you had to eat something around 5 tons a day for 80 years to get cancer.
That is exactly what is going on with this whole milk thing. Which, to say the least, is a tad bit ridiculous.
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity"
-Albert Einstein
There is a big difference. Studies have already been done to measure the quantity that will lead to the increase risks which my article mentioned. For example, three or more servings of dairy is linked to a 19% risk increase to cancer. Phosphorous has been known for a LONG time to interfer with milk intake. And a high animal protein intake has been also known for a LONG time to be linked to blood acidity. The process of calcium leeching has been actually observed and linked to blood acidity. Simply because studies come up that are later debunked doesn't mean you should elect to be ignorant and not investigate it yourself. Unlike a sudden emerging claim like you suggested, multiple other, unrelated studies have followed or existed before to support these claims. It is similar to the fact that cigarettes cause cancer. There is a multitude of evidence behind it. By your own logic, cigarettes certainly aren't linked to cancer. You can shrugged things off or you can start thinking and finding things out. Its all your choice. It is also your health.
Thanks for your article! I shared it with my sister, and she is inspired to stop drinking milk! As a healthy, energetic, extremely vibrant, forty year old vegan who cares deeply about my health and the health of my loved ones, this makes me very very happy!
Thank you. I am just beginning in my journalistic mission in life and I have had a lot of sentiment received from people who want to be amblivious, prefer complacency, and don't want to investigate the facts. So, a comment such as your comment, is more reassuring and, in a way, relieving.
Wow! That was so interesting! And in fact, I don't think you're crazy. This kind of stuff is not weird; it's normal and happens all the time. That's why I don't trust organizations, especially health organizations, and try to base what I eat on my own experience and intuition rather than on what the government tells me. (My eating habbits are FAR from what the government tells me they should be, although now they are saying it's different for every person; still, the same general guidelines apply.)
I've seen a lot of scientific studies that contradict previous ones, but that is science anyway, and is not including the government and corruption. When you add those factors, it makes you think a lot about virtual reality, how you can't trust reality, whether our whole lives are just a network or maze of illusions. It is incredible how people are being brainwashed; without anyone noticing. It is not like I've heard in the old movies, how the whole system of brainwashing turns everyone into zombies; the information just leeches into their brains and it becomes common knowledge that is false, they don't notice and it's not just for one specific cause but for lots of different ones that they are being misled.
I never really drank a lot of milk; I didn't really mistrust it or anything, but my bones and teeth are not prone to fracturing, and anyway, over the years I have seen calcium EVERYWHERE. (I read a lot of food labels.) I started to think, if it's in everything, then why is it so important to drink milk, if that is the main importance of milk?
Also, the "strong bones" thing always seemed weird. I would think that most teenagers wouldn't worry about the sensitivity of their bones as an old lady, or most kids think "I don't want to get cavities!"
Anyway, some months ago in Health class, we had to print out a paper advising us about food servings, after we had put in information about our weight, age, gender, and etc. This was from the government Food Pyramid website.
My paper said that I was supposed to get 3 servings of milk a day (and I'm 4'11", by the way). I thought "Holy crap!" and contemplated slightly the fact that three cups of milk a day sounded like WAY too much fat to consume from one source of food, especially when you think that other sources of fat are likely to be consumed as well, and that fat isn't found ONLY in milk. Especially when this site was telling me to limit the amount of candy bars I ate because fo their fat content, that sounded weird.
Besides that, milk is watery and stuff and has this weird consistency. I can drink a little bit of milk, but it seems really weird to drink 3 cups of milk a day just for "healthy bones". A big ratio of fat to dedicate to only one body system.
When I see milk and it is all thick, especially when I boil it and a fatty skin forms on the top, I think, how is even one cup of this stuff considered healthy?
Not only that, but an actual government organization as I mentioned is pushing for dairy's position in the economy. The government is literally pushing an unhealthy product as healthy and good to the public.
Additionally, Public Citizen, for example, exposed think tanks of scientists and researchers and what not producing, intentional favorable studies to corporations which fund them. In other words, some studies that are created are deliberately made to favor a result, not science whatsoever and fraudelent to the public to boot.
Yes, even 1% milk, three cups of that in a day is a huge portion of fat for one day. And considering that most foods which Americans eat tend to have also high contents of fat... three drinks of fat isn't going to help. I can't believe the dairy industry recently attempted to advertise milk as helping weight loss. I think this campaign got a lot of flak as it seems to have disappeared (or I just haven't seen it again so far).
One cup of broccoli will give you more calcium than a cup of milk. Where do the cows get their calcium? Greens. I don't know why people forget the fact that the meat and products of animals and their "nutrients" come from what these animals eat: greens!
Thanks for the feedback. And I'm encourage that you had the initiative to think on your own in your class project and see an otherwise obvious contradiction.
Citizen Press Revolution
Stewart, this is great. I've read everyone's opinion so far and I'd like to give you some encouragement and back-up. It's a personal account rather than scientific one. (I agree you need those links to the scientific study results.) I'm Scottish but I live in London. When I was in my late 20s I started getting reactions to dairy products. Because I am naturally thin and never get fat, I thought I could eat anything I liked. Because I loved to eat dairy (yoghurt, cream, cheese, butter, all kinds of cow's milk - and beef) for two or three years I refused to acknowledge that it was the cause of so many intolerance symptoms; I developed gastric effects, mucus, bronchial coughing and wheezing, dripping nose and so much sneezing that in later years a chiropractor asked me if I'd ever been in a car accident; apparently I had whiplash injury in my neck. Finally I was forced to admit that forty minutes after eating two thick and creamy yoghurts from a particularly good British food store that had particularly good-tasting desserts, I would experience all the above symptoms. I was so disappointed at being forced to give up stuff I loved.
It was difficult at first because first world grocers and chefs attempt to put it in most things. Try getting sauces in meals in restaurants that don't contain butter or cream - and I'm not talking about dessert menus. I had to start reading labels in supermarkets and ask waiters to describe the content of their menus to find one recipe I could eat. (I've now learned what I can have in restaurants and just go for that without creating a fuss or apologising any more. Also Thai, Japanese and Chinese are more suitable.) I also couldn't find anyone in my family or circle of friends to believe me which was almost worse. I had a lot of scorn at the time from one particular scientist in my family. I was told the old story; everyone knows you have to have dairy for calcium and so it couldn't be dairy; I obviously had a cold. But for years!!!?
Around the same time I developed a lump in my breast and was admitted to a cancer hospital in London. Luckily, it was a benign cyst but for several years my breasts had been generally painful and a bit lumpy all over - which till that time I had thought was normal, but it isn't. I did some research, as you do when alarmingly you are sent for a stay in the cancer hospital. I discovered that not only dairy but also caffeine might be contributary factors to irregular tissue formation. (Apparently caffeine interferes with the enzymes that build and destroy tissue) I gave up both at that time and all the lumpiness vanished within a short while. I know that this is a circumstantial account and not a scientific study but even though there may not be a direct cause and effect, I believe my stay in the cancer hospital was somehow associated with consuming too much dairy and so far I haven't come up with an explanation that fits better.
I am now dairy free (including beef, I'm afraid, because my intolerance goes as far as the entire cow) and every one of my symptoms has gone. I still eat meat but not much - again my research has come up with a little meat being OK - but mostly vegetables and fruits are what we ought to be eating (Paleolithic diet?). I think you'll find that along with too much protein, sugar is one of the most acid-forming substances we can eat (but don't replace it with aspartame which is worse!). I completely agree with you about an over-acidic body being the spring-board for degenerative diseases. I have read that our bodies ought to be slightly alkaline for best health.
It's all very well for some of the above people to be scornful; yes, we all die one day - but what we're talking about here is twenty years of good health or twenty years of ill-health before you die. What idiot would choose twenty years of ill-health!!?! Most of my family members have lived into their 80s; that is, apart from the ones who smoked who all went in their 60s. A couple of these cynics on this site remind me of my great-aunt, a smoker, who got lung cancer in her sixties. While she was lying in hospital a few weeks away from death, she was still angrily wheezing - "Nobody can tell me that cigarettes have caused this. I refuse to believe it".
Although people have eaten small amounts of dairy for generations, ours is the first generation to be exposed to such vast quantities. We're told time and time again the same myth; that the more we have of it, the better it is for us. We've been given every chance to overdo it by those people whose livelihoods depend on us buying more and more of the stuff. Cows are very cute animals but as has already been said on this site - milk is meant for baby cows. Not humans.
Thank you for your story and your reply. I love the line especially about, yes, we are going to die anywhere but you can either have twenty years of ill health or twenty years of good health. I wish I had thought to put it that way before.
There are also a lot of dairy alternatives becoming more accessible in the market too. So, people really have less and less excuse to abuse their health with dairy products.
I have to say that I do love Almond milk the most so far.
An interesting development has come up though to my attention about Silk soy milk: they have been bought by a major dairy industrial corporation. So, on a basis of principle and not wanting to support the dairy industry if I can help it, I am now avoiding buying Silk products, although I lapsed once because the connection slipped my mind at the time. I don't see boycotts such as these to be fanatical. I see it as as effort to live as consciously and aware as I can be instead of taking everything for granted.
I use to be an absolute lover of cow yogurt and cheese, even when I was fading out cow milk. The alternatives are different, but taste buds do adapt. The last time I tasted cheese over a year ago (in a quality restaurant pizza) out of curiousity, I didn't like the taste of it anymore. Of all the non-dairy margerines (many contain whey, a dairy product), Earth Balance is the best and contains no dairy whatsoever.
Citizen Press Revolution
I'm glad I hate milk and love broccoli.
I'm also glad you're bringing this up, despite people mostly disregarding it. There have been a good deal of smaller holistic operations trying to let the word out, but most of the time people just brush them off as "damn hippies".
Wow. Very interesting. I didn't even know that! And I just posted on how good milk is, because we kept talking about it in our nutrition class. Where did you find all this stuff? I want to present it to my class!
Thanks for reminding me to put up links to the sources of information I used. I've added them to the end of the article now. Also.. when you present this report, I'd appreciate it if you list or make mention of my blog's address and the entry's URL. Shameless promotion for me, but I'd like to think that somewhere in a classroom, my blog web address and name is being mentioned. ;-) It'd make me smile.
Citizen Press Revolution
I gave my presentation yesterday and everyone thought it was interesting! Thanks.
I'd be interested if you could tell me what they said in response.
Citizen Press Revolution
I think they were all surprised because a lot of students had not heard of this before. But they all thought it was very interesting.
Excellent article. I just wish soy milk and alternative sources of some of the nutrients that are found in milk could be made more accessible. Because Silk is expensive. And the majority of the people have no idea what's in milk, which they should, but this article is very informative .
I cannot think of any nutrients in milk that aren't easily found in dairy alternatives. Care to explain? You are more able to absorb calcium from dairy alternatives than from milk. You are not going to get BHG, antibiotics, diseased pus from BHG-injected cows, etc in dairy alternatives. On par, there is no significant pros of milk that I can find which would make it still a worthwhile consideration. Several of the cons alone and by themselves are reasons to stop drinking milk.
Citizen Press Revolution
home equity line of credit
While this seems very thoroughly reasoned out, I do not actually agree with your sentiments. You state that drinking milk actually reduces your calcium. But I know for a fact that that is not true. About a year ago, I was having like 8 servings a day (way more than I needed) of milk. I got my blood tested (for something completely unrelated) and I was looking at hormones, and I saw my calcium levels. I was .6 short of the maximum. Only .6%! Now, according to your logic, I should have no calcium or depleted calcium. I also find it interesting that your sources were NEWS articles. Where is the actual link of the actual studies?
I just checked up on your resources and it really is shocking how you have distorted the truth. You stated that the Harvard School of Public Health supported your allegations but that is a stretch by far. This is taken right off of their website: "Despite the debates surrounding milk and calcium, one thing is clear: adequate calcium - both for bone development and for non-bone functions - is key to reducing the risk of osteoporosis. However, the healthiest or safest amount of dietary calcium hasn't yet been established. Different scientific approaches have yielded different estimates, so it's important to consider all the evidence. " Consider all the evidence? Doesn't sound like they support your little theory. Then it goes even further, to dispel another statement you made: "Additional evidence also supports the idea that American adults may not need as much calcium as is currently recommended. For example, in countries such as India, Japan, and Peru where average daily calcium intake is as low as 300 mg/day (less than a third of the US recommendation for adults, ages 19-50), the incidence of bone fractures is quite low. Of course, these countries differ in other important bone-health factors as well - such as level of physical activity and amount of sunlight - which could account for their low fracture rates. " So while they do mention that it might be a factor, it could be caused by physical activity or amount of sunlight. That is not conclusive evidence! In order for any results to be conclusive, any extra factors MUST be ruled out.
The Cornell University study that supported your claim that took place in China was published in 1990. That's a long time ago. There's a reason why people don't use results from old studies. I mean, if you go back far enough, you can find studies condoning electric shocks to people with depression. Ethics and standards of scientific inquiry change with time, which often invalidates the findings of older studies.
Another resource was the WebMD Q & A. This is what the expert had to say about this:
"I have some concerns about consuming too many dairy products. A growing body of evidence links the consumption of dairy products with an increased risk of cancer. While these studies are not conclusive enough to cause me to stop recommending any dairy products, I think a little caution may be in order. " So your own resource yet again does not agree with your stance to not drink milk.
Then there is that other study from the International Journal of Health Services, which you got secondhand from the Cancer Prevention Coalition. The entire site is not about the dangers of drinking regular milk, it is about the dangers of drinking rBGH milk. And strangely enough, all of the effects you stated are described as resulting from milk with rBGH. And you said that it didn't matter what kind of milk because it came with the milk naturally. If that's true, why did one of your prominent sources advise people to:
"1. Do not buy milk from cows treated with rBGH. Unless the milk-label states “NO rBGH
Candy, I didn't distort the truth.
Let me point out that your post seems hostile. I am curious why you would feel the need to be hostile. People who have disagreed with me on this before have not usually been hostile.
Anyhow, you miss somewhat of a big point: this is just a sampling of the studies being shown that milk does not necessarily build strong bones, prevent osteoporosis, or as another propaganda campaign suggests, help lose weight. And yet, the dairy industry has ignored these studies instead of investigating these claims honestly. When the Dairy Council does research to conclude the healthiness of milk, one is reminded about the cigerette industry doing their own research to conclude the healthiness of cigarettes. Bias prior to a scientific study is questionable.
You are jumping to some rather wild conclusions. I didn't use all of these links as sources: I added a couple extra links quite awhile after I wrote this. I did read them. If you must now, I am in the works of reworking this article for publication. I am rather busy, to say the least, and some things have slide by (such as rewriting this) without my realizing it.
Regardless, I don't need all of my sources to agree 100% of my article. All I wanted to demonstrate with my links is that there is a debate about the heathiness of dairy in the industry and among professionals. I have proven my point as you know. My article and sources presents a lot of evidence and debate that you will not find in any mainstream venue. This is rather the point. When FOX fired their journalists for trying to publish a story about BHG milk, there is a good reason why I consider that important by itself. One of the themes in my article is the censoring done by the mainstream media. This is a common theme in many of my articles if you actually take the time to read them. One of my major points is to bring attention to issues which are being stifled by the corporate-mainstream-media.
I actually purposefully included sources which do not conclusively agree with me 100%. This is for fairness' sake. I want to add a little counterweight to my claims for people to think about further and decide for themselves. If someone will seriously consider stop drinking milk, they are likely to check out those links (which I forgot to add until someone here reminded about it again). I think it would be more dishonest if I included only posts that supported my claims 100% and to censor voices and the true nature of the debate.
Maybe your reply is from a stance bigotted against people who advocate animal rights (ergo your tone of hostility) and as such, your perspective is twisted from prejudice? I didn't, purposefully, include anything about the treatment of these animals in my post. I didn't want someone like you assume that I am a "crazy" animal rights activist and ignore the points I have to put forward.
I actually could have included other things such as that the way many of these dairy cows is treated leads to rampant infections to them, BHG is a primary factor that leads to infections, and that these cows are in turned pumped with antiobiotics which we end up drinking in turn. This contributes to yet another growing health concern: super-viruses that because of the constant presence of added antibodies in our bodies, end up becoming immune to these antibiotics. Likewise, there is the fact that these infected cows are still drained for their milk and that inevitably, a part of their infections' pus ends up in your milk too when you drink it.
Citizen Press Revolution
What I have a problem is that you stated it as fact. You did not say, there needs to be more study of this, nothing has been done to address this, let's bring attention, like you are now saying. You mentioned that there were 'several mass studies of significant size that prove this' and cited the study from Harvard, the study from Cornell U, and the study published in the international journal. It was strongly stated in your article. It was not just, oh here are more links, you actually mentioned them as strong evidence that backs up your beliefs and included them in the links as well. What I found when I looked at your sources were a few scholarly sources that basically disproved your allegation, and a bunch of radical vegan websites that supported your stance. Those websites in addition to some of the things you stated, led me to believe that you were a radical animal-rights activist.
I am not prejudiced against people who advocate animal rights. I actually am a big animal lover and have two cats of my own that I dearly love. I also am against animal testing, especially the testing of chimpanzees. I just don't agree with extreme animals rights groups like PETA and extreme animal rights activisits that throw paint on people's coats, and do eco-terrorism. There's a difference.
The funny thing is that I thought I had made some such statement. Like I said before, I was aware that my article needed to be rewritten. I was planning to add some more counterweight against my argument. Thanks for pointing this out. And I can understand how you could have perceived it as you did.
It was never my attention to mislead. As for the sources, there is a usual trend in changes. Even though the field of science is supposed to be scientific and acceptance and refusal of scientific data based on its scientific merits alone, it is rarely the case. Science, despite its supposed logical attitude, still has the very human tendency to resist change. Vegans are paying more attention to these studies. The same vegans are more willing to spread the availability and reach of these studies. It happens to coincidentally support their beliefs based on ethics. It is predictable and one would have to expect that normal mainstream people are going to be amazingly resistant to swallowing that one of the common foods they eat might not be what they thought it was and might actually be bad for them.
It is a testament not of radicalness but the fact that this segment of population (vegans) are much less resistant to change in regards to these massive studies for obvious reasons.
The fact that many vegan websites have published this information is not a disqualifier, just a synergistic coincidence.
As for changes in our thinking, historically usually a minority begins waving it around, but the mainstream is normally reluctant to change, eventually some in the mainstream, as the WebMD source, begins saying that, well, maybe they could be right, this needs to be studied more, but covering themselves publicly and privately by saying they don't want to give a concrete position. This is where we are now at. I have been aware about the debate about dairy for quite awhile (years and years in fact).
And these studies are starting to break through in tiny cracks through the mainstream's wall against change. Some in the mainstream are starting to not feel so safe about the social unconscious acceptance of milk and its supposed health benefits.
Now, I find the statement calling animal-rights activists as crazy to not be a neutral sentiment. I also don't find the words eco-terrorism to be very accurate to most of the groups it is stuck to. These eco-terrorists might be involved in sabotage, but they, without any exception I have ever yet come across, have ever physically endangered human lives. Our forefathers destroyed corporate property too against the British East India Tea Company. However, should we call them terrorists?
The only act of terrorisms or acts similar to terrorism I would place would be on SHAC7. SHAC7, for example, put on phone numbers, addresses, school addresses of people associated with the Huntingdon Life Sciences on a website in order to literally scare people from financially investing in HLS or working for HLS (who do test animals and treat them rather heartlessly).
However, PETA, contrary to popular belief, is not actually extreme. They merely do some extreme media events. Throwing paint on someone, this is not eco-terrorism. If the mainstream actually swallows that something such as that is eco-terrorism, it will be a dark day for America's future where acts of civil disobediance (or even civil obnoxiousness) become acts of terrorism instead.
Citizen Press Revolution
The fact that it is mostly vegan websites that have published this IS a disqualifier. A website supporting that position is going to pick and choose studies that support its stance. It is not a scholarly organization. If you want good information, peer-reviewed scientific journals are where to look. Not biased websites that aim to support a particular viewpoint.
You also stated that you thought that the fact that the dairy industry didn't look into those claims as evidence that they were waging a propaganda campaign, comparing them to the tobacco industry. That, in of itself, is a pretty explosive statement. If I were to compare our present president to Stalin, people would be pretty angry about that. I am not trying to talk about partisan politics (so please don't go there) but I am trying to show how comparing the dairy industry to the tobacco industry is a pretty extreme allegation and totally refutes your whole 'there needs to be more study of it' approach. Also, I hate to state the obvious, but why would the dairy industry look into these studies. They are trying to keep their profits and maintain the industry. I don't think they are very much concerned with that. In fact, you could describe the bread industry, the metal industry, any industry that way. Because they want to keep their profits. That's the whole point of a business. So I don't think that because they don't want to look into those studies means that they are trying to wage a propaganda war or deliberately keep the truth hidden. They just aren't going to actively do something against their interests.
Also, I don't really think it's because of 'resistance to change' like you said. Vegans are supportive of this idea because they aren't in favor of eating any type of animal product. Most people aren't really into milk, despite what advertisements may tell you. There's a reason why the ads are there. Because people aren't getting their daily dose of milk and their daily dose of calcium. Most of my friends don't like milk - they think it is disgusting - but most of them would disagree with your article. It is because it goes against common wisdom. If you think this 'common wisdom' is because of the media campaign, then apparently this 'media campaign' has been going on for a century.
I also want to say that I said, 'radical animal-rights activists,' NOT just 'animal-rights activists.' I also don't remember ever using the term 'crazy' in my statements. Eco-terrorism is a VERY serious thing. Just because the colonies destroyed property belonging to the British does not mean we can go about doing it too. I mean, our forefathers also staged a rebellion against the British government. By your logic, we should have the right to go stage a coup, cause that's what they did. That logic is flawed. Also, they resorted to violence because they had no representation whatsoever in government. Since we are a democratic society now, we no longer are in that situation. People do not have the right to go destroy someone else's property. I mean, ecoterrorists will go as far as targetting an employee's house. The common techniques of an ecoterrorist is instilling fear - that is why they are labeled as such.
I do care about the environment, but I believe that there is a better way of doing it than intimidating people, and destroying property.
PETA is extreme. You speak of their media campaign as extreme. You know what, the interesting this is, it wasn't their animal rights efforts that was the factor that caused me to be against the organization. It was their media campaign. They had many advertisements where women were shown in very demeaning ways. Because words just can't describe this, I will show a picture:
It was disgusting to see that A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION could stoop so low. And do you know what their answer was when About-Face.org's members sent letters to them about how it was derogatory to women? "Oh, we're not sexist, we have women working here." So basically, they use the fact that women are working there as a defense? Sounds like tokenism. Just because an organization has women hired there doesn't mean that they are somehow accepting of them. By showing women in such a derogatory way, PETA was basically saying that animals are better than women. And I just can't agree with that. I don't care if PETA was trying to make it look hip and cool with the media. I don't believe in putting one group down to lift up another.
Also, throwing paint on someone IS wrong and IS eco-terrorism. The logic behind the whole concept is that the coat or whatever piece of clothing that was taken from animals is now ruined, decreasing incentive to buy real fur again. The problem with that is, with today's technological advances in fashion, fake fur and fake leather look like the real thing. So that person throwing paint on what they THINK is a real mink coat, is really just a fake mink coat. And whatif that person held special significance to that coat - say, maybe it was given to them as a little girl before their father died. You've just ruined one of the most precious, invaluable things in their lives, and all because you think that wearing fur is wrong. I don't think wearing fur is right, but I don't think throwing paint on fur is right either. I think it is rather presumptuous for someone to think that they have the right to administer justice as they see fit. There's a reason why the government is supposed to be in charge of that. Because, in theory, government administers justices fairly because it is not just made up of one vengeful person - it is a big system with checks and balances. Now I realize that government doesn't do that very fairly too often these days. But are we going to just take to the streets with violence if we don't agree? Why, if everybody took the stance of the eco-terrorists, there would be blood running on the streets.
I think that we should spend more time on the propaganda issued by these radical animal-rights groups and ecoterrorists groups, because they are far more dangerous than the dairy industry. If your allegations actually do prove true (and I am pretty sure they won't), the dairy instustry wouldn't be able to hold that back. That's because it would change when actual large-scale studies are conducted (with no other possible factors causing it) and significantly prove a correlation between drinking milk and osteoporosis. And once that information is published, the AMA (and associated medical organizations) will be on their ass so fast the dairy industry won't know what to do. But radical animal-rights groups and eco-terrorists cause actual harm to citizens as well as businesses, despite their non-harm to people standpoint (sorry, but causing power and other vital things to be taken away from them IS harming them).
I think the fact that you support eco-terrorist groups proves my point that this article you posted is just downright propaganda and nothing else.
Who to listen to...
On one side, we have the people who say milk is bad for you. Perhaps they are looking out for your health. Perhaps they are animal rights activists or people who want to promote vegan businesses. Perhaps they are just misinformed.
On the other side, we have the traditional people who say that milk is good for you. Perhaps they are looking out for your health. Perhaps they are promoting dairy industries. Perhaps they have been misinformed all this time.
Who do we listen to? The FDA? People criticize them for being biased in favor of industries. The person with the most "resources?" Who is credible anymore?
I am stumped on this issue. Who to trust?
--Let us sit down and debate this matter like civilized individuals. Now where is my hammer!?--
Maybe you're right. But we also got taller, and that overrides all possible health problems.
Milk is good for your bones I dont care what anyone says. I have never had a cavity and I believe that is becasue I drink alot of milk which makes my teeth strong, among other things. I love milk and will drink it until it kills me :)
no way
i tell folks about this all the time...
i thgout milk helped to fight against these things. i am shocked by your srticle, but it is a realy eye openeer thanks
Thank you very much for this blog. I was told by an old friend that milk is bad, and I haven't been drinking much (I try to avoid as much as possible) since at least 6 years ago. I hated the phlegm that comes out whenever I drank it. I have tried to disprove my parents (and what most people say) on this issue for a long time, but back then I did not have enough resources.
There are true scientific articles (reported by the scientists themselves) where you can read the findings of milk's disadvantages. I am not sure if a literature review is out there, but PubMed (www.pubmed.gov) is a good database, where, not surprisingly, there are articles on both the therapeutic and negative effects of milk. A few good articles to support your arguments, since news articles may be indirect (I was a journalist once), are the following:
1. Fairfield KM, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Cramer DW, Speizer FE, Willett WC, Hankinson SE. (2004). A prospective study of dietary lactose and ovarian cancer. International Journal of Cancer, 110(2):271-7.
---"The milk sugar lactose is an hypothesized risk factor for epithelial ovarian cancer because of possible direct toxic effects of its metabolites on oocytes or by compensatory gonadotropin stimulation."
2. Tseng M, Breslow RA, Graubard BI, Ziegler RG. (2005). Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 81(5):1147-54.
---"Dairy consumption may increase prostate cancer risk through a calcium-related pathway. Calcium and low-fat milk have been promoted to reduce risk of osteoporosis and colon cancer."
3. Mendez D, Gimenez F, Escalona A, Da Mata O, Gonzalez A, Takiff H, de Waard JH. (2006). Mycobacterium bovis cultured from commercially pasteurized cows' milk: Laboratory cross-contamination. Veterinary Microbiology.
---"The ability of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis to survive the commercial pasteurization process of raw milk remains controversial."
I wonder how other types of animal milk, such as camel milk, affect our health. I read that camel's milk is better, because it has more antibodies, minerals, and Vitamin C. But I still understand that too much is bad; I understand (to a fair extent) about displacement of metals within the body (for instance, cadmium displaces zinc).
But I believe that there should be more studies to be done on the subject, and that more [honest] reports on the disadvantages of milk should be available to the public (many scientific articles have to be accessed through a university, for instance). Usually, there are two sides of a coin - you don't always come up with heads.
I heard this a while ago; my professor was saying that black people have the highest cases of Lactose intolerance and what do you expect by drinking another animal's milk??? She pointed out that humans are the only species to drink another animal's milk. And that they inject steroids into every animal now so they can produce whatever at a faster rate, so it's not healthy to intake the meat/or whatever anyway.
Just let it be known I still drink milk, just not on a regular basis, usually just with cereal. Everything nowadays causes cancer. Just cloase your eyes and live life to the fullest!!!
I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. ~Booker T. Washington