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

.

The truth about milk, Part 1: Dairy Industry History

The domestication of dairy cows has been practiced for a very long time, but the modern dairy industry as we know it has recently come into existence. With inventions such as refrigeration, pasteurization, and mass transportation, the availability of dairy products has massively expanded.

In the United States, the dairy industry has consistently maintained one of the most effective advertising campaigns in history. In fact, the famous Got Milk campaign has a 90% retention rate among consumers, meaning 9 out of 10 people that see the ads remember them. Numbers like that are something many advertisers can only dream about.

Since the days of our great-grandparents, we have been bombarded with ads proclaiming milk's health benefits. These ads have been so effective that the vast majority of the population have believed it to be true for decades. However, as effective as the campaign has been, there has always been a small group of people who have spoken out. One somewhat well known instance of this happened in the 1970s, when the dairy industry's slogan was, "Everybody Needs Milk." In 1974, the dairy industry was in the midst of a major advertising campaign declaring this slogan, when the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against the Milk Producers Advisory Board. The complaint charged the dairy industry with using false, misleading and deceptive advertising. The FTC complaint was issued due to a rising amount of scientific evidence that suggested that people don't, in fact, need milk, and that it was actually harmful to health.

But the dairy industry didn't waste a moment. They acted quickly and already had the slogan changed when the FTC announced its intent to file a formal complaint. The new slogan? "Milk Has Something for Everybody."

"Of course, that "something" might be diarrhea, iron-deficiency anemia, or even heart attack." 

                  -Dr Frank A. Oski, M.D.

The famous "It does a body good" campaign was halted in a similar manor, when medical health professionals began speaking out that it, in fact, does not.

Over the next several posts in this series, we'll look point by point at the claims made about milk's supposed benefits and why they are completely false. Claims about calcium, vitamin D, fat content, protein, weight loss, etc. are all staple advertising points used by the dairy industry, and all are false.

Tomorrow, we will look at the calcium myth. Stay tuned!

Further reading
This article is very long and covers several topics which I will cover in future posts, but it begins by describing the 1974 FTC complaint and is definitely worth reading:

http://www.lifestylelaboratory.com/articles/proof-positive/milk-friend-foe.html

.

The truth about milk: Introduction

I realize that this is a slight departure from my normal blog post topics here (of which there have been precious few lately, I know), but this is a subject I have a strong opinion on and wanted to share it. This will be a series of posts, one every day for as long as it takes to share everything. Let's start with a brief introduction, to be followed tomorrow by Part 1.

For several generations, the dairy industry has done a tremendous job convincing us that milk, specifically cow's milk, is a miracle drink, providing an incredible amount of nutrients to the human body. The vast majority of people strongly believe that milk is a requirement for health. The current tag-line of the dairy industry is even, "Milk: Nature's Wellness Drink." Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

Over the next several days, I will explore and explain why milk is far from healthy and is actually considerably detrimental to your body's well-being. All of the claims I make and statistics I refer to will be linked to their source material and I will strive to present facts, not my opinion.

If nothing else, I hope that by reading this series of posts, you will begin to ask questions. That's all I ask, is for people to not simply accept things, but to ask questions. There are so many things in life that the general public just accepts because, "that's the way it's done." If your doctor told you you needed to have your leg cut off, you would probably seek a second opinion. But when your doctor tells you to get a tetanus shot or to drink lots of milk, would you think to question that? I hope so.

And even if you come to a different conclusion than I do, as long as you're doing some research and asking questions for yourself, then I've done what I set out to do.

Look for Part 1 of the milk series tomorrow where I'll discuss the history of the dairy industry and it's consistently effective advertising campaign.

.

The Truth About Milk

Introduction
Part 1: Dairy Industry History
Part 2: The Calcium Myth
Part 3: Vitamin D
Part 4: Heart Disease
Part 5: Other Diseases
Part 6: Babies and Breastfeeding
Part 7: Children
Part 8: Nasty Stuff
Part 9: Raw Milk
Part 10: Other Dairy Products
Part 11: Alternatives
Conclusion

Neglected

Yes, I am aware of how long it's been since I posted. I have a darn good excuse, though: I'm a dad! :-)

Anyway, I am in the process of writing an upcoming series of blog posts which should start in the next few days. Stay tuned!

.