Milk was a bad choice

Discussion 3 Comments

1. Bruce April 20, 2010 at 10:08 pm

   I would like to raise some concerns about the article published in last weeks edition of the Ontarion. I find this article is not only incredible offensive as a dairy farmer at a University known for its agriculture program, but also from a ethics perspective. This article was opinionated and biased towards the anti milk perspective, and considering it is a report and not a letter to the editor/opinion piece, this is remarkably unethical. Some of the facts in the article do not add up as well; -salmonella is removed during pasteurization, and the public is more at risk from eating organic food or unwashed vegetables than drinking milk -rBGH is a hormone and hormones are illegal for use in Canada, and are only used in the USA -blaming cows for causing global warming due to methane is only an excuse to cover our garbage dumps and vehicle usage -closing farms would not solve world hunger, if the issue was that simple it would be solved by now The only reason I am sending this is because I would like you to consider the influence you have over peoples opinions. I have first hand experience talking with people that have read biased articles such as this. This article is not entirely true, however it is those false statement that require serious discussion to correct only because they believe the first source blindly.

   Reply
2. Bryan April 21, 2010 at 3:58 pm

   This whole article gets a great big [citation needed] tag. "Another milk protein, casomorphin, has proven links to autism and attention deficit disorder." No it doesn't. Some people think it has links to autism and ADD, but there has only been one double-blind randomised control study, and it showed the opposite: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16555138 "Group data indicated no statistically significant findings" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685183 "Owing to significant methodological flaws, the currently available data are inadequate to guide treatment recommendations." Also, you promote soy milk as an alternative, ignoring the fact that (along with milk) it's one of the most common food allergens (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/allerg/fa-aa/allergen_soy-soja-eng.php), and the link between tofu (a soy product) and brain atrophy: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/2/242

   Reply
3. Ben July 20, 2010 at 8:27 pm

   “Without a doubt, milk contains numerous essential nutrients. Calcium, proteins, zinc, phosphorous, vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, B12, D, E, and K are all found in milk. However, milk isn’t the only source of these nutrients, and often, isn’t the best source. For instance, turnips, nuts, seeds, broccoli, and kale all have more available calcium per serving than milk. It is also somewhat odd that humans are the only species that continues to consume milk throughout adulthood after weaning, as well as the only species to consume the milk of another species. The high rates of lactose intolerance in humans, bordering 50 per cent in North America, should be an indicator as to the suitability of milk for human consumption.” It is also somewhat odd that humans are the only species that constructs artificial flying machines in order to travel from one continent to the other. The first sentence in the second paragraph is simply an argument in favour of what is ‘natural’, which is never clearly delineated and almost always results in hypocrisy if applied consistently. The next sentence, about lactose intolerance, should be noted to be only applicable to north america and I suppose the mere 5% lactose intolerance in northern europe is therefore evidence of the suitability of milk for nothern european consumption? http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2007001100004&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en “It seems the cons may outweigh the pros of milk consumption. By federal regulation, milk is pasteurized before consumption by humans, because of the vast number of potentially harmful microbes present. Some of these microbes include E. coli and Salmonella, among others. Even after pasteurization, studies have found some of these microbes are still present at harmful, and occasionally lethal, levels.” Point one: Evidence of milk harm please, lets assume you are correct and that there are still lethal levels of bacteria, shall we have a comparative study of all food consumed and contrast the levels of harmful bacteria present to see if milk is abnormal in regard to having some problems such as this? Point two: it us inadvisable to eat meat raw, not that we do, due to the high probability of ingesting harmful bacteria, again, evidence that pasteurization is in itself a harmful thing worthy of our hate and disgust! Otherwise its just a good tool for ensuring a safe food product. “In the early 1990s, the American Food and Drug Administration approved the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to increase the production of milk. The use of rBGH led to a 20 per cent increase in milk production; however, the treated cows showed side effects, including udders swollen with pus. When the swollen udders are milked, the pus is transferred to the milk, which can cause illness in humans. The antibiotics used to treat the swelling were also found in the milk.” Okay, so this is bad, lets get rid of this then, any reason why this makes milk itself bad without it? “Further, the rBGH has been linked to increased chances of prostate cancer. Yet, Americans are those mainly at risk, since Canada and most of Europe has banned the use of rBGH since 2000.” Again, a repeat of the above, no reason to call milk bad because we added something to the cows that caused problems with the milk they produced. We spray pesticides on all sorts of things and even those opposed to non-sustainable farming don’t oppose the vegetables themselves, just the practice of spraying pesticides. “The supposed benefits of milk are also being challenged. Osteoporosis is supposed to be prevented by milk consumption. Ironically, it may be caused by milk consumption. Multiple proteins in milk contain sulfur. When these proteins are broken down, the sulfur reacts to form sulfuric acid. In order to neutralize the acid, calcium is taken from bone, thus weakening bones. Possibly even more ironic, the countries with the highest rates of milk consumption are also the countries with the highest rates of bone disease.” First: the last is a correlation not a causal factor, putting it out there without demonstrating any more of a causal link is misleading to the readers as there could be other factors that aren’t being taken into account. ps. Link please to a study showing the countries with both the highest bone disease rates and the highest milk consumption and demonstration of a causal link. Lets assume that your argument about sulfur is true, should the rates of calcium loss be possibly off-set by increased consumption of the (first paragraph) vegetables mentioned above? Would this not allow the benefits of the vitamins of milk without the potential loss of bone? Aren’t all foods deficient in themselves as a source of nutrients and must therefore be supplimented ? If you only ate Kale you would not be healthy, this is because you would have your body taking in enough of some things but it would have to start to, just as you described milk doing, break down parts of your body to make up for it. Nonetheless, even if we allow that milk causes bone loss, the question is how much, is it sever enough to outweigh the potential benefits and where is the study demonstrating this? If this a demonstrable health risk this would constitute an acceptable argument about milk safety. “A major protein, casein, has been linked to asthma. Casein produces histamines, which in turn, trigger the production of mucus, which leads to breathing difficulties. Another milk protein, casomorphin, has proven links to autism and attention deficit disorder. The list of milk-related diseases and conditions goes on. The Journal of Microbiology published an article arguing that a microbe found in milk might be responsible for Crohn’s disease in humans. A New England Journal of Medicine article suggests a link between milk consumption and diabetes. Additionally, milk consumption has been linked to infertility, ALS (also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease), and Multiple Sclerosis, to name a few.” Above two paragraphs, again, correlation or causation, more data please, this may be true and if it is it could sway me more to the side against milk because these are very damaging diseases but without actually looking at the studies and hearing from people who know the difference between correlation and causation I wouldn’t be at all inclined to support the end to milk consumption. However, again, without any sources here I have no reason to trust this, and given the sloppy thinking found above, there is incredible doubt cast upon this point as well as the others! It should also be pointed out, that the original article has comments that have taken issue with the claims regarding autism and asthma and HAVE linked to studies so I am inclined to be skeptical of the above two paragraphs as well. “Further, cows are known to carry diseases that can infect humans. Remember mad cow disease or the foot and mouth disease scares from years past? There have also been cases of tuberculosis being carried by cows in parts of the United States.” This could be an argument in favour of more careful monitoring of the milk supply and of improving the conditions at milk farms as well, as, I believe, it is also known that the quality of the conditions at the farms have an effect on the health of the animals that live their and also on the rate of disease. This is also a scare tactic, I am unfamiliar with Foot and Mouth disease, however, I am aware that ‘mad cow’ is no transmitted via the milk of the cow, in addition, mad cow is easily controllable should the food supply of the cow be properly maintained and assuming that we stop feeding cows to cows. Since mad cow is not a milk borne disease this is either an argument against meat cows or an attempt to shock and terrify the reader into accepting the premise that cows milk is bad via the attempt to form a mental association with ‘mad cow’. “Moreover, milk-producing cows require a lot of feed; that food could go to humans instead. There is an undeniable food shortage in the world, and cattle consume far more food than they produce. On top of that, cows produce a lot of gas, primarily methane. Methane is 23 times worse than carbon dioxide. Reducing our consumption of milk can even help the environment.” Finally! An argument I can agree with, but this isn’t just an argument against milk, it is an argument against all meat products! this is due to the fact that so long as you are feeding vegetables, fruit, grains etc... to animals to produce meat (or milk) you are going to loose energy along the way, so here, I wholeheartedly support this point. “So, if we can’t drink milk, what can we drink? How about soymilk? Soymilk is cholesterol free and contains less saturated fat than cow’s milk. It can be fortified with calcium to be equally as beneficial as cow’s milk. It also contains vitamins B1, B2, B6, and E. The isoflavones found in soymilk are known to reduce your chances of developing hormone-related cancers, such as prostate or breast cancers. Soymilk can also help prevent osteoporosis. For those who think soymilk tastes bad, try flavoured soymilk. Vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry flavours are available, nutritious and delicious. Do yourself a favour and grab a glass of soymilk, instead of cow’s milk. It is healthier, easier on the body, and is far less likely to cause any of the myriads of health conditions linked to cow’s milk. Anything that can cause a dozen or more health conditions and diseases is definitely a bad choice.” The last three paragraphs were excellent, and I agree with them, however, I must say, there was a distinct lack of supporting evidence throughout the article and there was also a problem with sloppy thinking in much of it. This makes me question the effectiveness of the writer and causes me to wonder if a better more thoughtful article couldn’t have reached the same conclusions as the last four paragraphs without all the un-sourced points and sloppy thinking found above.

   Reply