The Truth About Milk, Part 8: Nasy Stuff

Let's step back from the health risks of milk for a moment and examine what else is lurking in that white beverage. There are so many really nasty things in cow's milk that this post alone may convince you to stop drinking it, even if the other posts thus far haven't.

For this post, we will be looking at normal, run-of-the-mill, pasteurized milk from the grocery store. This post will not discuss raw milk, which has an entirely different makeup. Raw milk will get its own dedicated post on Monday.

Since it comes from a living creature, milk can contain any number of substances that were present in the cow. Pasteurization does destroy some of these substances, but not all. This might get a little gross.

Pus
Yes, milk contains a rather unsettling amount of somatic cells (commonly known as pus). These are most commonly white blood cells from the cow and the FDA has specific regulations about how many are allowed to be in each liter of milk. The current limit stands at 200 million somatic cells per liter. However, almost every state in the US routinely sells milk that is considerably over the limit. (read more here and here)

What does pus do in the milk? Opinions on that vary. The FDA regulates it because excess amounts of somatic cells can decrease shelf life of milk and also degrade the flavor. Others site the fact that bacteria can use the somatic cells as a growth medium, pointing out that the pus makes bacteria grow faster. Pasteurization does not destroy somatic cells.

So while the pus itself doesn't pose any specific health risks...do you really want to drink it?

Bacteria
Milk is one of the best bacteria-growing mediums available. In a perfectly healthy cow, milk is sterile as it leaves the udder, but bacteria begins to grow as soon as it touches the air. Even after pasteurization, which kills most bacteria, the milk still has a long way to go before it reaches the grocery store. Plenty of time for new bacteria to flourish, even at refrigerated temperatures.

Typical pasteurization involves heating the milk to 160 degrees for only 15 seconds. Ultra-pasteurization heats the milk to 280 degrees for a mere 2 seconds. But consider how we are told to sanitize water: boil at 212 degrees for several minutes. Pasteurization destroys most, but not all harmful bacteria present in milk.

At room temperature, the bacterial content of milk doubles every 20 minutes. As this article explains, the bacterial content of milk, at room temperature, explodes and reaches maximum in about 20 hours. Certain bacteria present in a number of milk samples have been linked to Chron's Disease and a form of meningitis. Consider all this the next time you give your toddler a bottle of milk.

IGF-1
This is a very commonly used growth hormone given to cows. It is called Insulin-like Growth Factor One. This hormone is given to cows to increase their milk supply, but it very easily passes through cows to their milk and is not destroyed by pasteurization. In fact, many studies indicate that IGF-1 content is actually increased by pasteurization.

In humans, IGF-1 is known to cause a wide range of problems, from increased diabetes risk, hormonal imbalances, early puberty, immune system damage, and cancer. Believe it or not, American milk is banned in Europe unless it does not contain these growth hormones.

It has been shown to promote breast cancer, increased liver weight, general weight gain, and many other problems. Milk without this hormone can be found in some places, however. It is usually sold at health food stores and will be labeled "NO rGBH."

IGF-1 can also remain in the milk even after it's processed into cheese or other dairy products. We'll cover other dairy products in a future post.

Other Stuff
There could very well be other random stuff in the milk you buy at the grocery store. The thing to remember is that everything the cow eats ends up in the milk. Sometimes it's destroyed by pasteurization, sometimes it's not. Everything from feces, to pesticides, to whatever else might be on the ground.

Conclusion
The clear message here is that milk contains a scary number of nasty little extras. From pus, which is very gross, but not very dangerous, to growth hormones which are very dangerous and cause cancer. These are things that you won't find on the ingredients list and yet are not to be taken lightly. The real conclusion is simple: milk is disgusting.

.

The Truth About Milk, Part 7: Children

Milk consumption among children is one of the most strongly pushed ideas in modern pediatrics. Their reasoning for pushing it so hard is that they believe it to be rich in calcium and other nutrients. As we've already covered, the calcium in milk is largely unusable by the human body, so that point needs no further explanation. But the fact that milk drinking is so strongly encouraged by pediatricians as well as schools and teachers remains.

One of the surprising aspects of this is that so many parents don't question it. When any product (food, medicine, vitamin, drink, etc.) is pushed so strongly, the motives behind that need to be questioned. As I said in my introduction post, as much as I would like everyone who reads this to stop drinking cow's milk, above all, I simply want you to ask questions.

While there are literally thousands of research studies, each revealing at least one of milk's hazards, the dairy industry goes to great lengths to stifle any damaging rumors. Blanket statements, such as, "There is simply no scientific research to back up these claims," are easily made. With a long and successful history of dairy promotion, these are readily accepted by the public. More people need to go to the real research and learn the truth for themselves.

                          - Dr. Linda Folden Palmer

The truth of the matter is that young children are at risk for the same types of problems as adults when it comes to milk. But there are several things that parents of young children should keep in mind. One is calcium. Remember that the calcium in milk is fairly useless and may even lead to a net loss of calcium in the body. Children are still developing and therefore need more calcium than adults. Numerous studies have shown that after adolescence, bone development stops. Why, then, would we feed our young children another species' milk that can be detrimental to bone development?

Growing children should be receiving their calcium from other sources, such as green vegetables and nuts. Not from dairy.

Another danger to children who consume milk is type 1 diabetes. A number of studies have suggested that early exposure to cow's milk proteins, both in formula and in drinking straight milk after age 1, increases the chances of developing type 1 diabetes.

...infants fed cow's milk formula had a significantly higher immune response to cow insulin than infants who received the other formula or were breast-fed.

- Dr. Mercola (link to article)

Finally, a big risk factor for children is that of allergies. Milk allergies are well researched and known to occur in a large number of children. It's often diagnosed as lactose intolerance, but the problem may be deeper than that. Milk contains at least 30 antigenic proteins (those that excite the body's immune system). These immune reactive proteins can cause problems and damage the immune system, allowing further problems to occur. Some studies have even suggested that early exposure to the allergic proteins in milk can lead to other allergies and respiratory problems.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated a very clear link between chronic constipation in young children and milk consumption (link to article).

The conclusion here is that milk is far from the perfect food for children. In fact, it is one of the worst things to give a growing child.

Further reading
http://www.nutramed.com/children/kidsmilk.htm
http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/linda_folden_palmer.html
http://www.greenourkids.com/natural-living/health/the-dangers-of-cows-milk-should-children-drink-cows-milk/

The Truth About Milk, Part 6: Babies and Breastfeeding

This is a topic that I have done considerable research on in the past several months, since it is something we are dealing with right now. :-)


Thankfully, cow's milk is no longer given to infants directly, and it is the official recommendation of pediatricians that milk not be given to babies until they turn one. Why? Because their developing stomachs are not designed to process the proteins and fats found in cow's milk. And even if they were, cow's milk does not provide the nutrients necessary for growing babies. Only human breastmilk is perfectly designed for human babies.


Consider this: humans are the only species to drink milk from another species. And we are the only species that drinks milk beyond infancy.


So, since it's fairly well established (even by the medical community) that children under the age of 1 should not drink straight milk, we'll skip discussing why this is indeed a bad idea. However, milk based formulas are also a bad idea, as is allowing children older than 1 to drink cow's milk (which we will cover tomorrow).


Babies and Formula
To begin, formula does not provide immunological protection the way breastmilk does. Breastfed babies receive temporary immunity to a wide range of diseases while they are still nursing. This is a perfect setup because their developing immune system is not yet ready to fight off diseases by itself, so the added protection from the breastmilk provides all they need. Formula does not provide this protection, leaving the infants vulnerable to any number of childhood ailments, such as ear infections, stomach problems, asthma, skin conditions, etc. 


The statistics are clear. Formula fed babies have a considerably higher risk of developing a wide range of problems, from ear infections and stomach aches, to cancer and diabetes. 

This brings us face to face with the safety and effectiveness of infant formula as a breast milk substitute. Is formula actually as safe as we have been led to believe? ...the answer is a resounding “no.” In fact, the use of infant formula doubles the risk of infant death for American babies.

               - Dr. Linda Folden Palmer (link to article)

And, unfortunately, it's not limited to infants. Those who were raised on formula have an increased risk of developing various diseases, even as adults. Formula fed babies are at greater risk for everything from heart disease to asthma and even obesity as they reach adulthood.

Studies have shown that children who are breastfed are less likely to be obese during adolescence, and that longer periods of breastfeeding greatly reduce the risk of being overweight in adulthood.

              - AskDrSears.com (link to article)

Ingredients of Formula
Modern infant formula has come a long way from the days of mixing cow's milk with flour and do provide adequate nutrition to babies. While even today's formula does not provide immunity (as discussed above) and has a fair share of unhelpful ingredients, it does meet the basic nutritional and vitamin needs. You won't find today's formula fed infants developing scurvy or iron deficiency. Aside from the things we know formula does not contain, there are many harmful ingredients that we know it does contain.

Of particular concern in formula is the ingredient manganese, a neurotoxic chemical found in much higher concentrations in baby formula, particularly soy-based formulas, than in breast milk

               - Alexis Black (link to article)

In addition to manganese, infant formula has been found to occasionally contain aflatoxin, aluminum, lead, bacteria, etc. There have been numerous formula recalls over the years due to contaminants such as glass and metal fragments. 


This is, of course, in addition to the contaminants added to formula from the tap water mixed with the powder. Tap water can contain chlorine, fluoride, bacteria, metals, sulfur, etc. All chemicals that the vulnerable and developing infant body is not prepared to deal with.


And, of course, most formula is cow's milk based. We've spent the last 5 posts examining how cow's milk is harmful to adults. These same milk proteins that cause adult problems are linked to allergies and worse in children.


Financial Burden of Formula
This is something that parents who use formula are aware of, but likely choose not to think about. Much the same way that the cigarette smoker can spend nearly $100 per month on cigarettes, parents who use formula are spending considerably more money than they need to. Formula costs the average family approx. $150 per month. This expense is for an inferior product, proven to be detrimental to a baby's health. And the alternative, breastfeeding, is completely free! Given these numbers alone, I am honestly very surprised that so many people willingly decide to use formula.

Conclusion
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says, "As a mother, one of the best things that only you can do for your baby is to breastfeed." It's one of the easiest, cheapest, safest and best solutions for a new baby. The health benefits are undisputed, and the risks of formula are clear.

Further reading
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/126415/the_benefits_of_breastmilk_dangers.html?cat=25
http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/articles/312-formula-report.htm
http://www.askdrsears.com/html/2/t020500.asp
http://www.westonaprice.org/children/msgformula.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/019338.html

.

The Truth About Milk, Part 5: Other Diseases

Much like heart disease, there are many other ailments which can be linked to consumption of milk. There are both adult and children problems linked to milk. We will focus on the adult problems for now, as I'll cover children in more detail in a future post.

Osteoporosis

As I briefly mentioned in the heart disease post, as well as the calcium post, osteoporosis has been very strongly linked to milk consumption. This flies in the face of everything the dairy industry has been proclaiming for decades. As with heart disease, geographical evidence is very compelling when examining osteoporosis. Those that consume the most dairy are also those with the highest osteoporosis and bone fracture rates. 

"Milk, it now seems clear, is not the solution to poor bone density. To the contrary, it's part of the problem."

- Dr. Charles Attwood

There is much to be read about this topic and I recommend the following articles as further reading:

http://www.milksucks.com/osteo.asp

http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm

http://babyreference.com/MilkingYourBones.htm

Multiple Sclerosis
MS is an auto-immune disease, meaning the body is attacking itself. More than one study has linked the various proteins and chemicals in dairy to adverse effects on the immune system. Not to mention all the artificial growth hormones and pesticides which end up in the milk on store shelves (again, we'll cover this in a future post).

We have studied the relationship between MS prevalence and dairy product consumption in 27 countries and 29 populations all over the world, with Spearman's correlation test. A good correlation between liquid cow milk and MS prevalence was found.

- Journal of Neuroepidemiology, 1992 (link to abstract)

Cancer
Once again, the artificial growth hormones and chemicals added to the milk (and the cows), have been shown to negatively effect the immune system, and even to promote cancer. Numerous studies have been done that positively link the growth hormone IGF-1 to cancer.

In a prospective study (Reports, 23 Jan., p. 563), J. M. Chan et al. investigated the relation between concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) in the blood and prostate cancer risk in a sample of 152 patients with prostate cancer and 152 healthy men. "A strong positive association was observed."

- Science Magazine, 1998 (link to summary)

Conclusion
I only briefly touched on these various diseases and how they are linked to milk and dairy consumption. This was by no means meant to be an exhaustive post and I highly encourage you to read further. But even from what I very briefly covered here, it's clear to see that there is a positive correlation between dairy and a number of adult ailments.

.

The truth about milk, Part 4: Heart Disease

This is a topic that has been extensively researched and discussed by authors far more qualified than me. Lots of studies have been done in lots of different countries and the results are always the same: drinking milk leads to increased risk of heart disease.


There are a number of reasons for this. Heart disease is typically caused by plaque build up in arteries. If an artery near the heart becomes completely blocked, tissue damage occurs at the heart, which is what we call a heart attack.


Milk actually aids in this plaque build up, making it progress faster than it otherwise would. It does this in two ways. First, whole milk and 2% contain saturated fat and cholesterol. These have been shown by numerous studies to increase heart disease risk. The obvious solution, then, would be to stick with skim milk. But even skim milk has cholesterol and is unsafe for other reasons.


As it turns out, milk (skim or otherwise) contains specific proteins that, when metabolized by the body, are broken down into various amino acids. One of the amino acids produced by the digestion of milk is known as BCM7. Dozens of careful studies have clearly implicated BCM7 as strongly increasing the oxidation of cholesterol in the blood, thereby increasing risk of a heart attack. The discussion of BCM7 is far beyond the scope of what I want to cover here. It is, however, a truly fascinating study. If you want to read more about it, there is a good summary article here, as well as an extensive book on the topic available here.


The most convincing data for proving that milk leads to increased heart disease risk is geographical data. Let's look at a few quotes:

Researchers who studied dietary links to heart disease in 32 countries found that, of all dietary factors studied, milk carbohydrates played the biggest role in the development of heart disease in men over 35, and nonfat milk played the biggest role in the development of coronary heart disease in men over 45.


                    - William Grant, journal of Alternative Medicine Review

-------

"The general observation can be made that, in countries where the daily calcium intake is 200-400 mg, arterial diseases are non-existent. Blood pressure does not increase with age. In countries where the daily intake is 800 mg, arterial disease is the leading cause of mortality. A more specific indicator is the strong positive correlation between consumption of milk and mortality from coronary arterial disease."


                    - Stephen. Seely International Journal of Cardiology (emphasis mine)

As researchers examined countries with the highest rates of heart disease, the correlation with milk consumption was striking. The countries with the highest consumption of milk were also the countries with the highest heart attack rates. Incidentally, countries with the highest consumption of milk are also the ones with the highest rates of osteoporosis and other diseases, which we'll get to in another post.


From this, it's easy to see that there is a clear link between milk consumption and heart disease. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, even more than cancer. It makes you wonder how many of those deaths could have been prevented by simply eliminating milk.


Further reading:
http://www.milksucks.com/heartdisease.asp
http://www.naturalnews.com/002695.html

The Truth About Milk, Part 3: Vitamin D

In addition to calcium, another selling point the dairy industry uses is vitamin D. It's hard to find a milk carton on store shelves that doesn't advertise vitamin D. They have published articles proclaiming the virtues of vitamin D and how so many people do not get enough of it in their diet.

The dairy industry is partially in the right here. To begin with, vitamin D is needed to absorb calcium. Since they believe their product to be rich in useable calcium (which we discussed yesterday), the adding of vitamin D would seem like a good thing. And it's certainly not a bad thing. Vitamin D consumed in the diet is at best slightly helpful, and at worst, irrelevant.

The truth of the matter is very simple: the human body can produce all of the vitamin D it needs from simple sun exposure. In addition, vitamin D is fat soluble, meaning that the body can store it for long periods of time. One study suggested that just a few hours of midday sun allows the body to produce enough vitamin D to last several months! For most people, their daily walk to and from their car provides enough sun exposure.

That being said, there is a rising occurance of vitamin D deficency in the United States. This can be mostly blamed on the fact that we are leading increasingly indoor lifestyles. Between our desk jobs, cars, and sunscreen, we are getting less sun than ever.

Couple that with the fact that vitamin D is needed by the human body to absorb calcium and you can see why the dairy industry has begun pushing their "fortified with vitamin D" campaign so hard. As we discussed yesterday, though, the calcium in milk is largely unuseable.

The vitamin D itself in milk is usable, as is vitamin D found naturally in other foods, such as fish oils. However, there is a risk to taking in too much vitamin D. To quote an article on the topic by Leon H. Rottmann, Ph.D:

It is known that [toxicity] can occur and cause pathological changes in the body when Vitamin D is taken in excess. These changes...are excessive calcification of bone, and calcification of soft tissues such as the kidney (including kidney stones), lungs and even the tympanic membrane of the ear, which can result in a high level of hearing loss and/or deafness... Infants and small children given excessive amounts of Vitamin D may suffer gastrointestinal upsets, bone fragility, retarded growth and mental retardation.

It is interesting to note that vitamin D toxicity is impossible from sunlight alone. The body has a safety measure in place whereby any excess vitamin D created (due to extended periods in sunlight) is destroyed.

As a sidenote, several pro-dairy authors have taken to blaming the rising vitamin D deficency among children on the rising trend of breastfeeding. Their logic goes like this: human breastmilk contains low amounts of vitamin D, children are increasingly vitamin D deficient, breastfeeding is growing in popularity, therefore breastfeeding must be to blame for children lacking vitamin D.

This argument is flawed on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin. I will cover breastfeeding in considerably more detail in a future post, but I will address the vitamin D issue here. To begin with, breastfeeding is far from a "growing trend." On the contrary, formula feeding has been around for only about 150 years. If vitamin D deficiency were caused by breastfeeding, then how were children able to obtain vitamin D back when breastfeeding was the only option? In addition, babies are specifically designed to get the vitamin D they need without dietary suplimentation through formula or fortified milk:

The amount of vitamin D in human milk is small...However, the vitamin D in human milk is in a form that is very easily used by the baby and therefore adequate for most infants, when combined with a small amount of sun exposure.

                         - Kelly Bonyata, IBCLC (article here)

There are obvious caveats to these arguments. For people who are already vitamin D deficient, supplemental dietary vitamin D may be required. Also, breastfeeding mothers who are themselves vitamin D deficient will obviously be unable to pass adequate vitamin D on to the infant. However, for the vast majority of people, simple sunlight for even short periods of time is more than sufficient.

Further reading
http://www.kellymom.com/nutrition/vitamins/vitamin-d.html
http://vitamins-minerals.suite101.com/article.cfm/vitamin_d_and_sunlight

The Truth About Milk, Part 2: The Calcium Myth

Whenever the subject of milk nutrition comes up, calcium is always one of the first arguments used. Most people have a very strongly held belief that the calcium in milk is essential to healthy bones and teeth and that without it, any  number of health risks can crop up. This belief comes from generations of dairy industry advertising (dare we call it brainwashing?) that milk is nature's miracle food.

This belief is half correct: calcium is indeed a very important part of a healthy diet, but milk is decidedly not the place to get it. Let's look at some reasons why.

Magnesium
According to the government (here and here), the calcium content of 8oz of milk is 290mg and the magnesium content is 24mg. If we examine other calcium rich foods (we'll discuss those in a minute), we would see that the ratio for those foods is nearly 1/1, with equal amounts of calcium and magnesium. Indeed, magnesium is an essential part of calcium absorption. Without it, the calcium just passes through, unused.

Protein
The protein content of milk is the subject of another post, but let's look at it very briefly as it relates to calcium. Milk has been called "liquid meat" because its protein content is so high. In some respects, this can be a good thing, because protein is another important part of a healthy diet. However, protein has a definite affect on calcium.

The human body uses calcium reserves to digest protein. So when you eat meat or drink milk, your body is actually pulling calcium out of storage and utilizing it to help digest protein. One study suggested that for every 50mg of protein consumed, 60mg of calcium is used. Other studies have suggested that while calcium is used to digest protein, there is no marked bone loss as a result of a high protein diet.

The general consensus seems to be that a person who consumes a high-protein diet should also be sure to consume adequate calcium to prevent calcium loss. Due to the fact that the vast majority of the calcium in milk is unusable, there is a definite possibility that drinking milk can actually lead to a net loss of calcium.

Alternatives
If not milk, then where do we get calcium? The reality is that there are so many calcium-rich foods out there, that it's a wonder milk ever caught on as a calcium source in the first place. For example, the tiny little sesame seed outshines milk by an extreme margin: just one cup contains over 2000mg of calcium and just slightly less magnesium.

Almost all nuts and seeds are excellent sources of calcium, as are figs, oats, molasses, prunes, yeast, kale, collards, broccoli, cabbage, asparagus, and pretty much all other green leafy vegetables.

Conclusion
As you can see, milk is far from the ideal source of calcium. On the contrary, it is actually one of the least effective calcium sources available and may even further remove calcium from your body.

Calcium is so easy to obtain from other dietary sources, that it really is surprising that the dairy industry has managed to entrench its message so deeply. If you look at foreign countries where dairy is a rarity, do you see populations that are dying of osterperosis and calcium deficency? Far from it! We see people who are thriving and have considerably healthier bones than those countries that consume dairy products.

Tomorrow we will look at Vitamin D.

Further reading
As I said in my introduction post, I strongly encourage you to research these topics for yourself. Here are some good articles to start with:

http://www.milksucks.com/osteo.asp
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm
http://www.freedomyou.com/nutrition_book/Milk%20and%20Cookies.htm

.