The Last
Milk Column
This past April I began what was to be a series of
three articles on the negative aspects of cow’s milk consumption. I never
thought that the articles would generate the volume of response
that I’ve received. Only my columns on medical marijuana
generated a greater number of e-mails. This is perfectly illustrative
of the sacred place that cow’s milk holds in our nutritional
consciousness. As I pointed out in my first article, milk’s
lofty perch is supported by an annual budget of tens of millions
of advertising dollars spent by the dairy industry,
In the May column on cow’s milk I
discussed the difficulty that the nutritional components of cow’s milk pose to human
digestion and assimilation and covered a myriad of serious illnesses
associated with milk consumption. Now for “the rest of the
story.”
Cow's Milk and Contamination
Bacteria -- Independent studies by Consumers Union have confirmed
that even when pasteurized, milk is not free of bacterial contamination.
The studies also point out that the amount of bacteria in milk
varies from batch to batch. Surprisingly, the FDA does not require
milk to be free of contamination.
Pesticides -- The Consumers Union studies found that 84% of the
cow's milk samples tested contained pesticides, including chlorinated
hydrocarbons, which are known to be toxic and produce cancer and
birth defects. Again, the FDA allows a certain level of pesticide
contamination to be present in milk, believing that small amounts
are harmless.
Antibiotics -- Penicillin, given to cows to treat udder infections,
has also been found in milk, posing a hazard to milk drinkers who
are allergic to penicillin.
Hormones -- A great majority of milk cows are pregnant and the
hormone progesterone is found in their milk. Progesterone, one
of the sex hormones, breaks down into molecules called androgens,
which has been implicated in causing acne. It is unknown what effect
these bovine hormones have in the human female reproductive system.
Again, to some women these hormones may be benign, while to others
they may have more serious ramifications.
A letter to David Kessler, head of the Food and Drug Administration,
from Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., expressed his concerns about the
use of bovine growth hormone (BGH) in animals for increased milk
production. The hormone induces an abnormal level of insulin growth
factor in milk. Insulin growth factor is not destroyed during pasteurization
and is not inactivated by digestion in the human gut. Insulin growth
factor can be absorbed through the gut wall, particularly in infants,
whose digestive tract is still developing.
Insulin growth factor has been shown to abnormally increase
body weight and increase liver weight. It also induces malignant transformation
of normal human breast epithelial cells and stimulates the growth
of the cancer cells. It has a similar association with colon cancer.
In his letter, Dr. Epstein urges the FDA to revoke recent restrictions
on labeling of BGH-free milk.
In 1992, a report by the Government Accounting Office
(GAO), the investigative arm of congress, raised serious questions
about BGH. During its two and a half year study, the GAO investigators found
that BGH-treated cows have 33% more udder infections (mastitis)
that untreated cows and are therefore given more antibiotics. The
GAO found that the FDA has not determined what effect these antibiotics
have on human health and recommended that the FDA ban BGH-containing
products pending further research. Because these recommendations
are non-binding, the FDA has not had to comply with GAO suggestions.
Nutrient Problems in Cow's Milk
Since milk is generally species specific, the substitution
of one milk species for another can lead to nutritionally related
problems. Humans are the only animals that drink
the milk of the mother of another species. The nutrient balance
in milk is perfect for turning a 45-pound calf into a 300-pound
cow in a year. Cow's
milk is higher in protein, calcium, and phosphorous but lower in
iron, zinc, niacin and vitamin C as compared to human milk. Humans
fed cow's milk have to deal with a higher renal load and possible
nutritional deficiencies, especially iron. Infants consuming cow's
milk during infancy are at risk for iron deficiency not only due
to the low concentration and bioavailability of iron, but also
because of gastrointestinal loss of iron in the stool which has
been related to cow's milk. Gastrointestinal bleeding occurs from
the use of pasteurized cow's milk and is seen more often in infants
younger than 6 months of age. The authors of several studies conclude
that cow's milk does not meet the standard of quality that allows
for levels of nutrients to maintain growth and appropriate stores.
Calcium -- Invariably, when I counsel parents to refrain from
feeding their children cow's milk, they bring up the calcium question.
Where are their children to get their calcium from if not from
milk? Most parents know that a growing child needs lots of calcium
for the proper development of strong bones and healthy teeth. The
fact of the matter is that the calcium in milk is not very absorbable
because of the high phosphorus content in milk which prevents the
absorption of calcium in the human intestinal tract. Furthermore, even
the staid American Academy of Pediatrics has conceded that a child's
calcium requirement is less than was previously thought. In addition, the human body can adapt to the amount of calcium
in the diet so that when there is a minimal amount introduced,
more is absorbed.
Vitamin D -- Several reported cases of vitamin D intoxication
appear to be related to daily consumption of as little as one half
cup
of vitamin D fortified cow's milk. Milk that claims to be fortified
with Vitamin D may create problems in children because milk additives
are not carefully monitored.
Conclusions
So what are we to believe? On the one hand, the Department of
Agriculture is not going to tell the schools to stop serving milk.
The American Dietetic Association says milk is not a dangerous
product. The National Osteoporosis Association tells us that milk
is an excellent source of calcium.
On the other hand, Dr. Benjamin Spock spoke for a rapidly growing
number of researchers and physicians when he said, "Parents
have been doing their duty as they were taught by medicine and
dietetics and forcing milk on their children. We have to get parents
over that."
Dr. Frank Oski, director of pediatrics at prestigious
Johns Hopkins University, who wrote a book in 1977 entitled, “Don't Drink
Your Milk,” says, "There is nothing unique about milk,
regarding its nutritional benefits, that should make you want to
drink it. There is no reason for us to spend lots of money to give
milk to kids when it doesn't do them any good."
Whether or not we include cow's milk as part of our children's
diet is a question that is emotionally and culturally charged. Obviously, we have to individually evaluate the available research
and make the decision for ourselves. However, it makes sense to
me that as parents and caretakers, we have a responsibility to
err on the side of conservatism and avoid exposing our children
to controversial foods which may have profound long-term negative
effects on them.
|