Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, Public Servants and Trust

Call me idealist, but I give our elected officials and public servants the befit of the doubt – that they are acting in our best interests to the best of their (sometimes limited) knowledge. This interview both confirms and explodes that belief. From the CBC’s public affairs show of Nov 22 2012, two Canadian scientists from Health Canada’s Food Inspection Agency explain the pressures they felt (to the point of being fired) to allow the use of Eli Lilly and Monsanto’s Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (RBGh) in Canadian dairy cattle.

RBGh is a synthetic, laboratory produced version of a hormone that cattle produce cyclically during their growth, maturation and lactation. It is administered to increase milk production in adult cows. RBGh has been strongly linked to several metabolic diseases both in dairy cattle and in humans consuming milk produced by cattle being treated with RBGh. Luckily, Canadian dairy farmers are not allowed to use RBGh on their animals.

The bad news – the Canadian government has slowly changed Canadian dairy regulations (in the face of pressures from GATT and NAFTA agreements) to allow freer access to Canada’s markets for American dairy products (including those from cows treated with RBGh). In an effort to reduce “protectionism” and to allow “market forces” to dictate what’s best for us, our dairy marketing laws have been slackened to allow access to our grocery shelves to U.S. dairy products. The American products allowed access to Canadian markets are dehydrated products. They are listed as “milk ingredients”, “concentrated skim milk”, “whey protein concentrate” or “milk protein concentrate”. Using milk products from cows treated with RBGh is a sneaky way to help keep the cost of your yogurt and other dairy products artificially low. Even in the U.S.A., many small farmers have stopped using RBGh on their cattle because they noticed the negative health effects. Most industrial farming operations (factory farms) still use this hormone as a way to keep production up and costs down. When you consume products with RBGh milk, you expose yourselves to serious health risks (cancer, thyroid and gonadal problems, allergy and inflammation problems) and you indirectly encourage poor animal welfare practices.

Read the ingredients and think don’t buy dairy products labelled with “milk ingredients”, “concentrated skim milk”, “whey protein concentrate” or “milk protein concentrate”. It’s that simple. Vote with your wallet, and when the next election comes to your neighbourhood – ask questions of those vying for office. Don’t blindly trust their good intentions.

Health Protection Branch, Health Canada
April 21, 1998

This volume consists of the submission by Consumers International, a 230- member organization in 100 countries: supplementary information dated Sept 25/97

Identified potential public health impacts were as follows:

  1. Levels of IGF-I are significantly elevated in milk from rBST treated cows and will continue to rise with increased use of BST.It is the IGF-I, not the BST per se. that is the main cause for concern regarding possible adverse effects on human health. It is indicated that IGF levels are substantially increased in the latest Monsanto study and in 5/7 studies previously reviewed by JECFA. US FDA concurs that BST treatment leads to statistically significant increases in IGF-I levels in milk. Another study (Prosser et al, 1989) was cited which was reviewed neither by JECFA nor FDA, which reported very high levels (3.6x normal) – much higher than what had been presented in the submitted data. Table I is a good summary of the data.
  2. IGF-I, in the presence of casein and other protective factors, is not destroyed by digestion in the stomach and can pass into the intestine, where it may produce local harmful effects. Epithelial cells in the colon grow more rapidly in response to IGF-I at the levels typically found in milk. Acromegaly, a disease involving high endogenous IGF-I levels, is associated with increased risk of colon cancer and pre-cancerous colon polyps.
  3. It is suggested that toxicity studies with free IGF and the fact that endogenous levels of IGF levels are higher than what is found in the milk of BST treated cows is irrelevant because the IGF is not associated with any protective factors that would ensure bioactivity. IGF binds to receptors lining the GI tract and will stimulate the synthesis of its own receptors. It is also suggested that IGF -1 can be absorbed in the systemic circulation where it may affect the levels of other hormones.
  4. Increased mastitis leads to higher antibiotic residues exacerbating antibiotic resistance. The FDA’s “safe” limits of up to 150 ppb can select for disease resistance in S. aureus.
  5. It is speculated that IGF-I plays a role in the expression of genes that encode for prion synthesis and that increased IGF-I shortens the incubation period for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Thus, the use of BST might increase the risk of exposure to BSE infection.

  • local effects on GI tract: both paracrine and autocrine in nature – growth factor for colon cancers -conclude that the colon is at special risk
  • strong role in breast cancer
  • may play a role in osteosarcoma, the most common bone tumor in children, usually occurring during the adolescent growth spurt
  • implicated in lung cancer
  • possess angiogenic properties – important to tumors some of which secrete their own growth factors to promote angiogenesis,
  • e.g., retinal neovascularization in mice

In November of 1993, the FDA approved rBST zinc suspension to enhance milk production in lactating dairy cows, declaring that the milk from treated cows is safe for human consumption. The United States is the only developed country permitting the use of BST, of which there are four manufacturers. There are reports on file that Monsanto pursued aggressive marketing tactics, compensated farmers whose veterinary bills escalated due to increased side effects associated with the use of rBST, and covered up negative trial results. All the four US manufacturers refused to disclose the lists of their research grants to US universities.



    For the purpose of approving ESCs, HSD concluded that the milk and meat from BST treated cows was safe for human consumption as early as 1986, without providing any rationale as why this conclusion was reached. Studies submitted in support of this conclusion were not described until 1990.

    1990: 4-page review by D.R. Casorso completed within two weeks of the filing of the submission.

    1995: more detailed review by M.S. Yong which presented, for the first time, the rationale for concluding that meat and milk from BST -treated cows is safe for human consumption; first mention of the potential adverse health effects of IGF-I.

    1998 reviews by M.S. Yong: rationale for waiving the need for chronic toxicity testing; discussion of potential allergenicity.


    Studies indicated by manufacturer as being available upon request were never requested by HSD reviewers.

    Importance of the 3-month rat toxicology study as an indicator of potential oral absorption of rBST, i.e., the demonstration of immunoglobins in rat serum, was not mentioned. This is an important omission in that the lack of oral bioactivity formed the basis for waiving chronic toxicity study requirements. The human health implications of the immunological findings in rats should have been thoroughly evaluated and dismissed only if adequately justified by the evidence available at the time (e.g., binding of rBST to HG receptor is negligible; antibodies raised to rBST will not cross react with HG, primary response was induced in only 30% of animals at high doses, etc.). IGF-I production in liver of rats was not examined. Species specificity issues and possible threshold effects (dose -response) should have been discussed. Secondary challenge bioassays should have been requested to further characterize the immunological response.

    The fact the rBST can be absorbed, albeit at high doses, calls into question the decision not to request additional chronic toxicity studies. The evaluator should have explored the physiological effects of such high oral doses (and effects on hypophysectomized rats further (e.g., effects on peripheral growth and metabolism).

    The 1990 evaluation was largely a theoretical review taking the manufacturer’s conclusions at face value. No details of the studies nor a critical analysis of the quality of the data was provided.

    The requirement for a 3-month study in a nonrodent species (e.g,, dog) was not requested. No long-term toxicology, teratology or reproductive/fertility studies were requested. Definitive studies demonstrating the lack of absorption of rBST or IGF-I upon oral administration were neither conducted nor requested.

    Potential adverse effects of IGF-I on human health were not discussed until 1995. When discussed, rationales were based purely on speculative reasoning and not on substantive data or studies. The rationale for not requiring chronic toxicity or teratology/reproductive studies was described in more detail in the 1998 reports but again is based on the assumption that there are no physiological consequences of oral absorption of rBST. This ignores the fact that the 3-month rat study did show a physiological response.

    Evidence from the animal safety reviews were not taken into consideration. These studies indicated numerous adverse effects in cows, including birth defects, reproductive disorders, higher incidence of mastitis, which may have had an impact on human health. This observation should be qualified by the poor quality of the data package. Similar observations were recorded in the FDA FOI summary and the company label. These findings should have stimulated the need for requesting additional teratology and reproduction studies in laboratory animals. This should have prompted HSD evaluators to re-examine the accuracy of their data and the assumptions based thereon.

    The mastitis issue should have raised concerns regarding increased use of antibiotics with consequent exacerbation of resistance to antibiotics.

    The nature of the product (being a hormone) and its chemistry should have prompted more exhaustive and longer toxicological studies in laboratory animals.


Fast Food will Kill You Fast




By Dr. Gabe Mirkin, M.D.

According to a study in Circulation (July 2, 2012), people who eat fast foods:

* ONCE a week increase risk for dying of heart attacks by 20 percent;

* 2-3 TIMES a week increase risk by 50 percent;

* 4+ TIMES a week increase risk by more than 80 percent, and increase risk for diabetes by 27 percent.

The study was done on Chinese people in Southeast Asia to explain the recent incredible rise in heart attacks and diabetes that is associated with the increase in fast food restaurants there.

They had the same results as the many studies already done on Western-Caucasians in the United States.

Foto de una carretera en la cual se destacan a...Foto de una carretera en la cual se destacan anuncios de los restaurantes de comida rápida KFC, Wendy’s y Taco Bell entre otros. Picture of a highway in which fast food ads are featured:KFC, Wendy’s and Taco Bell among others. Taken in Bowling Green, KY. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Saturated fats in meat, milk shakes and ice cream, and burnt fats (called Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or PAHs) in all fried foods such as fried chicken and French fries:

* block insulin receptors, to

* prevent the body from responding to insulin, to

* cause high rises in blood sugar.

Sugary foods, particularly sugared beverages, also can cause very high rises in blood sugar levels.

High rises in blood sugar cause sugar to stick to the outer surface membranes of cells to destroy the cells. This damages cells in every part of your body to cause heart attacks, strokes, dementia, nerve damage, blindness, deafness, and the other effects of diabetes.

Sugar enters muscle and liver cells. If the sugar is not burned for energy to power the cells, it will first be stored inside the muscle and liver cells as glycogen.

However there is only a very small and limited amount of sugar that can be stored in cells. Once the cells are full of glycogen, all extra sugar is converted to a type of fat called triglycerides. Triglycerides fill up liver cells to cause a fatty liver.

Having a fatty liver virtually guarantees that you are diabetic or are becoming diabetic..


Eighteen slim and healthy men and women ate at least two fast food meals at fast-food restaurants every day (Gut, published online Feb 14, 2008). In four weeks, they gained an average 14.5 pounds (one put on 26 pounds).

After one week, their liver test called ALT quadrupled from 22 U/l to of 97 U/l and their liver cells filled up with fat.

This means that they were on their way to developing a fatty liver after just ONE WEEK of fast food meals.

Diabetes is the most significant cause of heart attacks in North America today.

Colin Campbell Phd

About T. Colin Campbell

For more than forty years, Dr. T. Colin Campbell has been at the forefront of nutrition research. His legacy, the China Project, is the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted.  Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has more than seventy grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers and coauthor of the bestselling the book, The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health.

Copyright: The Dairy Education Board Text Only

Sunday, July 25, 1999 

T. Colin Campbell
      Turn to the back cover of many of today’s best-selling books on alternative medicine, and chances are that you’ll find a quote from T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., professor of nutritional science at Cornell University.Dr. Campbell has been one of the great spokespersons for a plant-based diet and is best known for his landmark scientific study, the China- Oxford-Cornell Study. Campbell has linked heart disease and cancer to diet and his work is well respected and accepted throughout the world.


That study is the most comprehensive investigation of diet and disease in world history. Campbell was once a meat-eater, but the scientific evidence gathered from his work was convincing enough for him to adopt a plant-based diet. On May 8, 1990, Jane Brody of the New York Times wrote:

“Campbell’s China study is the grand prix of all epidemiological studies.”

It is interesting to note that Jane Brody is no advocate of a vegetarian lifestyle, yet, she accepts and praises Campbell’s science.


The major finding from Campbell’s study was that people who eat a typically American animal-based, protein-rich diet have seventeen times the death rate from heart disease as do people who satisfy their protein needs from fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains. Data from his study indicated that women who derived their protein from meat and dairy products were five times as likely to die of breast cancer than those who ate a plant-based diet.


The China Project is a uniquely comprehensive study that is yielding scientifically solid, groundbreaing information that can directly impact your health now and for the rest of your life -information that you can use on:cancer
heart disease
osteoporosis and
many other topics of concern to you”..The ‘Grand Prix’…the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease… tantalizing findings: -The New York Times


I met T. Colin Campbell at the North American Vegetarian Conference in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Since that first meeting, we’ve spoken many times on the telephone. T. Colin Campbell is a brilliant lecturer, commanding the attention of his “students” with his sparkling brown eyes and piercing Irish wit.

We have discussed bovine proteins. Dr. Campbell calls casein “carcinogenic.” Casein represents eighty percent of the protein in milk.

We also discussed “politics.” Cornell University has historically been a great friend to the dairy industry. Cornell professors like Dale Bauman, David Barbano, and Culberto Garza have received many millions of dollars from dairy industry sources. The influence of these three men has shaped government policy and influenced dietary guidelines and food pyramids.


The subject of his talk at Johnstown was the confusion in newspapers and conflicting views concerning “information overload.” I took notes at his lecture, furiously scribbling down his words of wisdom. Campbell noted:

“I cannot imagine how the public at large can possibly understand all of the information and dis-information.”

Campbell brought his audience to laughter when he said:

“I can design a study to show that a carcinogen is actually an anti-carcinogen.”

This is exactly what the dairy industry does by promoting cheese and claiming that dairy foods prevent colon cancer.


Campbell challenged the audience. He asked, “How many nutrients are there?” One listener called out “Nine.” That’s what the dairy industry claims can be found in milk. Nine essential nutrients.

In answering his own question, Campbell pointed out that there were countless things in foods which give us benefit, and noted that there were 600-700 different types of beta-carotene, carotenoids found in fresh fruits and vegetables.

Campbell taught me that the number of different variations of naturally occurring fiber could be measured in the tens of thousands.

Scientists speculate that an untold number of nutrients have yet to be discovered, but Campbell revealed that the number of known unique nutrients could be measured in the tens of thousands.


In science, we get caught up in dis-information. Campbell believes that we should re-think our concept of exatly what is a nutrient.


Campbell presented evidence that revealed the average American’s diet. The average intake of protein is 90-100 grams per day. The RDA for protein is 56 grams per day, while the minimum daily requirement is a mere 24 grams per person per day.

Dairy Subsidy

Jeffrey Simpson (Bill Grimshaw)


Canada’s a double-dealer in world trade


The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Apr. 20 2010, 4:35 PM EDT

Suppose you were a member of the Canadian Widget Makers Union. Your company tried to export widgets to Country X but couldn’t penetrate the market because of a 241-per-cent tariff. Chances are, you, the company and the CWMU would scream blue murder at the blatant protectionism.

Or suppose you were a wheat farmer. You want to export to Country Y but discovered that your product faced a 292-per-cent tariff, effectively shutting you out of the market.

It sounds implausible, even crazy, that anything like this could happen in today’s world of trade agreements. But it does happen, right here in good old Canada. Welcome to supply management.
If you think stratospheric is too strong a word, consider these tariff levels for imports above the small allowed quota

Last month, eight Pacific countries gathered in Melbourne to begin negotiations toward what they believe could become a free-trade deal among them. They hope that such a deal could spread to other Asian countries, that continent being the world’s fastest growing area.

Canada, belatedly, wanted to be at the Melbourne table. Instead, we were told we weren’t welcome, except as observers.

The rebuff came from some of our closest friends – the United States, Australia and New Zealand. They wanted participants who are serious about free trade. They knew that Canada wouldn’t be serious, because Canadian participants would be obliged to exclude supply-managed agricultural products, just as Canada has done in every trade agreement.

Canada, as the world knows, is a double-dealer in world trade. We talk a great game, and work hard to create free or freer trade in some areas, because liberalized trade greatly benefits a country so dependent on exports.

Then Canada turns around and defends to the upmost supply-managed products with tiny import quotas and stratospheric tariffs on anything above those tiny quotas.

If you think stratospheric is too strong a word, consider these tariff levels for imports above the small allowed quota: chicken, 238 per cent to 253 per cent; turkey, 154 per cent to 169 per cent; fluid milk, 241 per cent; cream, 292 per cent; yogurt, 237 per cent; buttermilk, 268 per cent; butter, 298 per cent to 313 per cent; cheese, 245 per cent; ice cream, 277 per cent; eggs, 163 per cent.

Think these are high? They were even higher before the mid-1990s, when Canada was forced to cut tariffs by 36 per cent. What did we do? We placed higher-than-stratospheric tariffs on supply-managed goods, then reduced them by 36 per cent to today’s level.

Here’s another part of the supply-management racket. Quotas for imported eggs, cheese, cream and chicken haven’t been raised since the mid-1990s, despite population and economic growth. Domestic supply-managed farmers, operating behind these tiny, static import quotas and huge tariffs on anything above the quota, have scooped up the new market, while raising domestic prices since they face no competition.

Supply-management lobby groups pat themselves on the back, saying their system doesn’t cost the taxpayer a nickel. This is absolutely true – and deeply misleading. Taxpayers don’t subsidize these farmers through the government, but they do as consumers with every purchase of these products, which are also used in many processed foods.

Low-income consumers are hurt the worst, because they pay a larger share of their limited household budgets on food than wealthier citizens. You would expect the New Democrats, self-appointed champions of low-income people, to be up in arms about this racket, except that their friends in the union movement and think tanks such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives never saw a liberalized trade agreement they liked.

The NDP, therefore, joins the other parties in pledging undying fealty to supply-managed farmers. Just before the last round of world trade negotiations, the House of Commons, whose members can seldom agree on the day of the week, unanimously passed a resolution instructing Canadian negotiators to defend supply management to their dying breath.

Australia and New Zealand, two of the countries that rebuffed Canada, used to have huge protection programs for dairy farmers. New Zealand swept away all subsidies in 1984 – and is now the world’s largest exporter of dairy products! Australia got rid of its subsidies by buying out farmers courtesy of a tax on milk that paid for the rationalization of the industry.

In Canada, the power of the Quebec and Ontario supply-managed farm groups frightens and paralyzes federal governments of whatever political stripe. The farmers compose the music. They write the libretto. Politicians sing what is put in front of them.

Milk-diabetes Connection

CANADA confirms the milk-diabetes connection.

Early exposure to milk proteins is accepted as the cause of


Investigator Dr.John Dupre, M.D., at the London Health
Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, has a new study, still
unpublished, which provides absolute proof of the missing
link that has been so controversial.


CTV reported this story.

"It's a controversial theory that now has new scientific
fuel...can cow's milk trigger diabetes in children who are
prone to the disease?"

The study suggests that if babies considered at risk of
developing the disease are taken off cow's milk formula they
may be protected against getting diabetes later in life.


"Can juvenile diabetes be PREVENTED in children at risk of
the disease simply by eliminating cow's milk from their

THE ANSWER - Dr John Vandermullen

Dr.John Vandermuellen's response:

"The data is building that there may in fact be something

Vandermuellen and a number of Canadian researchers helped
design a study conducted on 200 infants in Finland.  The
children all had a family history of diabetes.  After being
breast fed, they were given either cow's milk or an infant
formula modified to eliminate cow's milk protein.  By the
time the children were age two there was a striking
difference between the two groups.

Among the children who avoided cow's milk formula, nearly 2%
showed signs of possible diabetes development.  Among those
given the cow's milk, over 12% had signs that diabetes could
be developing.


The theory is that milk proteins in the cow's milk may
trigger the child's immune system to attack it, along with
similar looking BETA-cells in the pancreas that produce

The data are so intriguing that Canadian researchers have
begun an even larger study on thousands of children at
fourteen diabetes centers across Canada.

How to Avoid Diabetes


Sugar and Refined Carbohydrates in Your Diet

By Dr. Gabe Mirkin

Since the 1940s, North Americans have suffered an incredible increase in disease. Today, 70 percent are overweight, 35 percent become diabetic, 40 percent die of heart attacks, and we have very high rates of certain cancers. Major culprits appear to be refined carbohydrates and lack of exercise.

In the late 1940s, Ancel Keys noted the increasing heart attack rate in North America and blamed dietary saturated fats and cholesterol in animal products.

diabetes and carbohydrates

John Yudkin in England blamed sugar. At that time, Ancel Keys won the debate and Fred Staire, the chairman of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health and a personal friend of mine, wrote that sugar is safe. John Yudkin died discredited in 1997, but today it appears that he was a prophet..

Due to the acceptance of Ancel Keys’ views, scientists developed drugs to lower cholesterol and told people toavoid saturated fats. The rate of heart attacks has gone down, primarily because of drugs and a better understanding of what causes them. Yet the incidence of diabetes and obesity keep rising. The culprits appear to berefined carbohydrates, particularly all sugars.

HIGH BLOOD SUGAR DAMAGES EVERY CELL IN YOUR BODY. After a person eats refined carbohydrates, particularly any sugared drinks, blood sugar can rise too high. This causes sugar to stick to the outside surface of cell membranes where it is converted by a succession of chemical reactions to sorbitol which  then damages every cell in your body, ultimately causeing blindness, deafness, heart attacks, strokes and all the side effects of diabetes.

BEING FAT CAUSES HIGH BLOOD SUGAR LEVELS. Before insulin can do its job of driving sugar into cells, it must first attach on special hooks on cells called insulin receptorsFat inside cells blocks insulin receptors.Muscle cells full of fat cannot respond to insulin and the sugar remains in the bloodstream. Full fat cells send out hormones that block insulin receptors to prevent insulin from clearing sugar from the bloodstream.

HIGH RISES IN BLOOD SUGAR MAKE YOU FAT AND CAUSE DIABETES. When blood sugar levels rise too high, the pancreas releases large amounts of insulin. Insulin converts sugar to triglycerides. If you do not burn these triglycerides for energy, they fill fat cells with fat and you gain weight. Full fat cells block insulin receptors so blood sugar rises and you become diabetic.

EXERCISE HELPS TO PREVENT DIABETES. Sugar cannot enter resting muscles unless insulin is there to drive the sugar into muscles. However actively contacting muscles can draw sugar from the bloodstream without needing insulin. So during exercise, muscles can remove sugar from the bloodstream to prevent the extra sugar from damaging cells and being converted to fat. It also helps make insulin receptors on cells respond to insulin and push sugar into cells.


YOU NEED TO EXERCISE EVERY DAY. Muscles draw sugar from the bloodstream without insulin only when they are actively contracting or lack oxygen and they can continue drawing sugar without insulin maximally for up to an hour after you finish exercising. They lose all ability to remove sugar without insulin 17 hours after you finish exercising. Since the sugar-lowering benefit of exercise lasts in muscles no more than 17 hours, you must exercise every day to retain this benefit.

THE HIGHEST RISES IN BLOOD SUGAR COME FROM SUGAR IN DRINKS. All sugared drinks cause very high rises in blood sugar levels. Orange juice will cause the same high rise in blood sugar as sugared soft drinks. When food enters your stomach, the pyloric sphincter at the end of the stomach closes. Then solid food is converted to a liquid soup that is pumped into the intestines by stomach muscle contractions.

An orange can stay in your stomach up to five hours, while orange juice passes immediately into your intestines where it is absorbed, causing a rapid rise in blood sugar..

FOODS MADE FROM FLOUR ALSO CAUSE HIGH RISES IN BLOOD SUGAR. Grains are seeds of grasses. They have a thick capsule that is so tough that you have to cook them for at least an hour just to make them palatable. Blood sugar barely rises after you eat WHOLE grains.

However when you grind whole grains into a powder, the flour that is formed can enter the bloodstreamimmediately to cause a high rise in blood sugar. So pastas and breads can cause high rises in blood sugar, even if they are made from whole grains.

DIABETICS SHOULD EAT FRUITS AND WHOLE GRAINS, AND SO SHOULD YOU. Fruits are full of sugar. However, diabetics who do not eat fruits dovery poorly. Everyone should eat fruits and whole grains, even those who are overweight, diabetic, or have high cholesterol levels. Everyone should restrict sugared drinks and flour, particularly if they are overweight, diabetic or have heart problems.



Dairy Issues

Dairy Unified Marketing Plan

Marketing Milk and Disease-USA The Dairy Industry is really big business – with sales of over $11 billion for milk and $16 billion for cheese annually in the USA alone – so you might expect hard line marketing from them – but would you expect them to aggressively sell their products if they were known to be harmful to people – especially to women and children?The Dairy Management Inc.™, whose purpose is to build demand for dairy products on behalf of America’s 80,000-plus dairy producers, has just released the Dairy Checkoff 2003 Unified Marketing Plan (UMP) with a budget of $165.7 million.1  The United Marketing Plan explains, “This ongoing program area (referring to the section Dairy Image/Confidence) aims to protect and enhance consumer confidence in dairy products and the dairy industry. A major component involves conducting and communicating the results of dairy nutrition research showing the healthfulness of dairy products, as well as issues and crisis management.”1 (Most likely, I fall under the heading of “issues and crisis management.”)

A significant portion of the money from the 2003 Unified Marketing Plan is specifically targeted to children ages 6 to 12 and their mothers.  The goal is “to guide school-age children to become life-long consumers of dairy products, 2003 activities will target students, parents, educators and school foodservice professionals.”1 (Similar words and intentions have been attributed to the tobacco industry.) All this marketing is working, too: annual fluid milk consumption among kids 6 to 12 increased to 28 gallons per capita – the highest level in 10 years. Children under 18 drink 46% of the milk consumed in the USA.

Realize that when I say milk in this article, I’m also implicating all dairy products that are made from milk: non-fat milk, low-fat milk, buttermilk, cheeses, cottage cheese, yogurt, ice cream, whey, kefir, and butter. All of them share a similar nutritional profile (plus or minus the fat, protein, and sugar), and as a result, all of them contribute to a wide range of health problems.

Will the UMP Inform You of the Contamination? E. Coli, AIDS and Leukemia Viruses?

Last month I left you with some very disturbing facts about the contamination of milk with loads of bacteria and millions of white blood cells (pus cells) which are there to help fight off the infections found in cows and milk (see the April 2003 Newsletter found  Will the 2003 Unified Marketing Plan specify money to inform you of this upsetting information?  You will never see an advertisement with a famous movie star proudly wearing a white mustache, properly labeled as containing 300,000 white blood cells and 25,000 bacteria.

Dairy products were the foods most often recalled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from the period October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1998 because of contamination with infectious agents, mostly bacteria.2  They are commonly tainted with disease-causing bacteria, such as salmonella, staphylococci, listeria, deadly E. coli O1573 and Mycobacterium paratuberculosis4 (possibly one of the agents causing Crohn’s disease; a form of life-threatening chronic colitis) – as well as viruses known to cause lymphoma and leukemia-like diseases, and immune deficiency in cattle.

AIDS and Leukemia Viruses
Dairy cattle are infected with bovine immunodeficiency viruses (BIV) and bovine leukemia viruses (BLV),   worldwide.  (Bovine immunodeficiency viruses can also be properly referred to as bovine AIDS viruses.)

  • In the United States, results show an average 40% of beef herds and 64% of dairy herds are infected with BIV.5
  • In Canada6-7, the infection rate is 70% and in Argentina8 the rate is 84% for BLV.
  • Herds infected with the BIV are usually infected with the leukemia virus (BLV) also.5
  • Both viruses can cross species lines thus infecting other animals, like sheep, goats, and chimpanzees – and they develop disease.5
  • Nationwide and worldwide, leukemia is more common in the higher dairy consuming populations.9,10
  • An increased incidence of leukemia has been found among dairy farmers in multiple studies.11-14
  • BIV infection has been reported in a person.15
  • The bovine leukemia virus has been classified in the same group as the Human T-cell Leukemia/Lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1), which is known to cause leukemia and lymphomas in humans (Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma).16
  • BIV is structurally and genetically closely related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type-1 (the virus causing human AIDS).17
  • Pasteurization kills many types of microorganisms, but it is not foolproof.  There is also concern that pasteurization may break the viruses into fragments that may become even more dangerous.18

Has it been shown that the bovine AIDS and/or leukemia viruses will infect you and cause disease?  No. Nor has it been proved that they will not.  Compared to the efforts to try to convince you of the bone-building benefits of milk, almost nothing has been spent to establish whether or not it is safe to feed your family dairy products teeming with bovine immunodeficiency and bovine leukemia viruses (and/or viral fragments).  Some countries take this matter very seriously.  For example, in many European countries, health officials have conducted programs to eradicate infected herds –Finland’s program has successfully eradicated BLV from its cattle.19

If you live in a region with a high incidence of herd infection with these viruses you can be pretty sure you will be consuming dairy products containing whole viruses or fragments of these viruses, since the milk from many dairy farms is mixed in large vats at the dairy factory before processing and packaging.  Since the industry will not act responsibly in many countries, consumers are left with one choice – eliminate all dairy products from their diet.  If eliminating dairy products would prevent even a small risk of human disease, it would be well worthwhile, especially since, as you learned in the April 2003 McDougall Newsletter, they are completely unnecessary for excellent health.

Will the UMP Market the Pain and Suffering Caused Children?

The Dairy Management Inc.™ has specifically targeted children in their campaign.1  This will raise no public concern, because most people consider cow’s milk the healthiest of all food choices, especially when it comes to children.   Over 25% of children are overweight in Western countries and cow’s milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, butter, and sour cream, with all their fat and calories, contribute greatly to this deadly epidemic.  Many of these overweight children are now developing type-2 diabetes.  However, the most common variety of diabetes found in children is still type-1 or insulin dependent diabetes (IDDM).

Type-1 Diabetes

The evidence incriminating cow’s milk consumption in the cause of type-1 diabetes is sufficient to cause the American Academy of Pediatrics to issue these warnings, “Early exposure of infants to cow’s milk protein may be an important factor in the initiation of the beta cell (insulin-producing cells of the pancreas) destructive process in some individuals.”20 “The avoidance of cow’s milk protein for the first several months of life may reduce the later development of IDDM or delay its onset in susceptible people.”20

Exposure to cow’s milk protein early in life, when the intestinal tract is immature, sometimes results in the milk protein entering the blood stream where antibodies to this foreign substance, cow’s milk, are made by the immune system.  Unfortunately, these same antibodies also attack the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.  By glassful of milk after spoonful of ice cream, over a period of about 5 to 7 years, the child destroys his or her own pancreas – and is left with a lifelong, life-threatening, handicap: diabetes. The pancreas is forever destroyed and the child will have to take insulin shots daily.  Complications, such as blindness, kidney failure, and heart disease will be a real threat during his or her shortened lifespan. (See my July 2002 McDougall Newsletter for a discussion of type-1 diabetes).


Not as life-threatening as diabetes, but for some as mentally and physically distressing, is chronic constipation.  As a doctor who has cared for hundreds of children, I can tell you they suffer with pain, bleeding, hemorrhoids, and embarrassment.   The causal effects of cow’s milk were clearly demonstrated in a study of 65 severely constipated children published in the New England Journal of Medicine.21  These boys and girls complained of only one bowel movement every 3 to 15 days and many didn’t even respond to strong laxatives (lactulose and mineral oil).  Forty-four of the 65 (68%) found relief of their constipation when taken off the cow’s milk.  Evidence of inflammation of the bowel was found on biopsy, and anal fissures and pain were commonly associated with the constipation – elimination of the cow’s milk solved these problems.  When cow’s milk was reintroduced into their diet 8 to 12 months later, all of the children developed constipation within 5 to 10 days.   For constipation alone cow’s milk should be banned from the School Milk Programs, worldwide.

Rhinitis and Otitis Media

The multitude of snotty-nosed kids frequently visiting the pediatrician’s office for ear infections is much more obvious than the constipated crowd, and these problems less devastating than type-1 diabetes, but these complaints also can be due to consuming the foreign proteins intended for calves.22-25 In addition, these same children are likely to suffer from gastroesophageal reflux, asthma and/or eczema from their unnatural habit of drinking cow’s milk.

Diseases of Foreign Protein

Many conditions can be traced back to reactions to cow’s milk.  Milk contains more than 25 different proteins that can induce adverse reactions in humans.26 Our immune system perceives these foreign proteins as alien invaders, like a virus or bacteria, and launches an attack in response, as in the case of type-1 diabetes discussed above and many other allergic and autoimmune diseases.

General: Loss of appetite, growth retardation.
Upper Gastrointestinal: Canker sores (aphthous stomatitis), irritation of tongue, lips and mouth, tonsil enlargement, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux (GERD), Sandifer’s syndrome, peptic ulcer disease, colic, stomach cramps, abdominal distention, intestinal obstruction, type-1 diabetes.
Lower Gastrointestinal: Bloody stools, colitis, malabsorption, diarrhea, painful defecation, fecal soiling, infantile colic, chronic constipation, infantile food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES), Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis.
Respiratory: Nasal stuffiness, runny nose, otitis media (inner ear trouble), sinusitis, wheezing, asthma, and pulmonary infiltrates.
Bone and joint: Rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Behçet’s disease, (possibly psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis).
Skin: Rashes, atopic dermatitis, eczema, seborrhea, hives (urticaria)
Nervous System   (Behavioral): Multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, autism, schizophrenia, irritability, restlessness, hyperactivity, headache, lethargy, fatigue, “allergic-tension fatigue syndrome,” muscle pain, mental depression, enuresis (bed-wetting).
Blood: Abnormal blood clotting, iron deficiency anemia, low serum proteins, thrombocytopenia, and eosinophilia.
Other: Nephrotic syndrome, glomerulonephritis, anaphylactic shock and death, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS or crib or cot death), injury to the arteries causing arteritis, and eventually, atherosclerosis.
References are available through the National Library of Medicine,  Search “cow’s milk” and any of  the diseases listed above.All dairy products contain milk proteins, including skim milk, yogurt, cheese, and butter, and many butter substitutes.  Milk proteins are listed in packaged food products with a variety of names, such as milk solids, skim milk powder, casein, caseinates, whey, and albumin.  Milk is also often put into packaged foods and not declared on the label – this is illegal and punishable by FDA action.

Even with all of this disease in children the American School Food Service Association and the dairy industry have developed a School Milk Pilot Test to demonstrate that kids will drink more milk in school if certain product enhancements are made.27 The result was milk sales increased by an average of 18 percent and consumption increased by 35 percent when schools provided flavored milks and other package enhancements.28

The UMP Will Try to Deceive You about the Fattening Nature of Dairy Foods

“Independent research confirming dairy’s role in weight reduction is mounting,” said Dr. Greg Miller, senior vice president of nutrition and scientific affairs for the Dairy Checkoff.29 “This helps to position dairy foods as part of the solution to America’s growing obesity epidemic.” And Miller added, “Informing the public about dairy’s role in the fight against obesity will help increase consumption of milk, cheese and yogurt, among other dairy products.”

Shouldn’t the idea of milk acting as an “antiobesity” food strike you as fundamentally contradictory? – After all, the biologic purpose of cow’s milk is to provide large amounts of energy and nutrients to grow the young animal from 60 to 600 pounds.  So how does milk become a weight loss product in the 21st century?  This idea began with the observation that underprivileged people, who have poor diets in general, are often obese, and also consume few dairy products.30  Some experiments that followed showed people and animals on calorie-restricted diets lost a small amount of extra weight when calcium or dairy foods were part of their diet. The “antiobesity” effects of dairy are difficult to explain, but may be due to calcium binding fat in the intestine, preventing its absorption.30

A thorough search of the literature for properly designed studies shows only one of 17 randomized studies found weight loss in people taking calcium pills, and of the nine randomized studies where fluid milk was added, two showed significant weight gain,and none showed significant loss.31  In one study funded by a grant from the International Dairy Foods Association, 204 healthy men and women were asked to increase their intake of skim or 1% milk by three cups a day for 12 weeks; those consuming the extra milk gained an average of 1.32 pounds (0.6 Kg).32  Can you imagine what their weight gain would have been if they had been asked to add whole milk, cheese, butter, and ice cream to their diet, instead of skim and low-fat 1% milk?  The result of all this research was well summed up by one of the dairy industry’s frequent spokespersons at the Dairy Management Inc. sponsored Symposium: Dairy Product Components and Weight Regulation, held April 21, 2002 in New Orleans, with this statement, “In conclusion, the data available from randomized trials of dairy product or calcium supplementation provide little support for an effect in reducing body weight or fat mass.”31 Yet the consumer will hear from Dr. Miller and the rest of the industry, “eat more dairy products and you will lose weight.”

Dairy products are loaded with fats that are easily stored under your skin as “body fat.”  The fats in the cold glass of milk, the little bite of cheese, and that small bowl of ice cream will move from your lips to your hips effortlessly.  In fact, it moves with so little effort that the chemical structure of the fat isn’t even changed. Cow’s milk contains a unique kind of fat with double bonds located at the C-15 and C-17 position on the fat’s carbon chain.  Examination of a person’s fatty (adipose) tissues following a biopsy will show the amount of this kind of fat present, which will be in direct proportion to the amount of dairy products the person consumes.33

All that fat the dairy industry asks us to eat is associated with higher risks of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and breast, prostate, uterine and colon cancer.  Yet, as a marketing scheme, the dairy industry has teamed up with the National Medical Association to write articles about “the role of dairy in helping reduce the risk of heart disease, hypertension, and other serious health issues.”34  The National Medical Association promotes the collective interests of physicians and patients of African descent.  Please explain to me how this association came about when the vast majority of people of African descent (80% to 90%) cannot drink milk because of lactose intolerance; causing them diarrhea, stomach cramps and gas.35

Not only is this dairy fat unattractively worn and a health hazard, but it is also a source of large quantities of environmental chemicals, like dioxins and DDT, that affect your health and the health of a mother’s offspring during pregnancy and nursing.36  One reason a young girl needs to start thinking about a healthier diet early is because the accumulation of these chemicals in her own body fat occurs over her entire lifetime.

The UMP Will Try to Confuse You about Bone Health and Animal Protein

Osteoporosis is caused by several factors; however, the most important one is diet – especially the amount of animal protein and acid in the foods we eat.37-39 The high acid foods are meat, poultry, fish, seafood, and hard cheeses – parmesan cheese is the most acidic of all foods commonly consumed.40 Once consumed, this food-derived acid must be neutralized in the body.  Fruits and vegetables can do this neutralizing (these foods are alkaline in nature).  However, because the diet of the average Westerner is so deficient in fruits and vegetables and so high in acid foods, the primary neutralizer of dietary acid becomes their bones – the bones dissolve to release alkaline materials.

Worldwide, the highest rates of hip fractures are among populations that consume the most animal food (including dairy products) – like people from the USA, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, etc.41,42  The lowest rates are among people who eat little or no dairy foods (these people are on lower calcium diets) – like people from rural Asia and rural Africa.41,42  The basic experiments published in the 1980s clearly show protein causes bone loss, and calcium offers little or no protection.43

Even the foremost scientists hired by the dairy industry know protein is harmful to the bones.44  In my April 2003 Newsletter I explained there was only one properly designed study testing the effects of fluid milk on the bone health of postmenopausal women – and the results were: those who received the extra milk for a year lost more bone than those who didn’t drink the milk.44  The authors, funded by the National Dairy Council®, explained in their paper, “The protein content of the milk supplement may have a negative effect on calcium balance, possibly through an increase in kidney losses of calcium or through a direct effect on bone resorption.” Trying to explain why those receiving the milk were in worse calcium balance, they said, “…this may have been due to the average 30 percent increase in protein intake during milk supplementation.”

Unfortunately, all this damning information does not sit well with the powerful dairy industry, so they have started the “3-A-Day of Dairy” program to battle the calcium crisis in America by promoting milk, cheese and yogurt for stronger bones – and they have been busy doing their own research to prove protein is good for the bones.45-48

Regrettably for them, their designing means were just revealed in the May 2003 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.49  The article in this journal exposed the way they made the results show protein is good for the bones.  To devise research that appears to contradict hundreds of articles published over the past 35 years, you only have to provide sufficient alkaline material in the diet of the people being studied to neutralize the acid from the animal foods.  This was accomplished by studying populations that have diets high in neutralizing fruits and vegetables; the other approach employed was to add a strong alkali source to the experiment, such as an antacid pill (wafer), calcium citrate (like Citracal).

Once the acid from the food is neutralized, then any bone building factors that might be present in meat and dairy can exert their effects.  High protein foods, and especially dairy foods, raise the levels of a powerful growth-stimulating hormone in the body, called insulin-like growth factor-1 or IGF-1.  Stimulation of bone growth by this hormone is now being offered as the reason dairy products build strong bones. It has long been necessary for them to find a more scientifically supportable explanation, because the bulk of the research shows the calcium in dairy foods has little or no benefit for bone health.50-52

The UMP Will Not Promote the Fact that IGF–1 is a Powerful Cancer Promoter

Consumption of animal products increases the levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 in your body.  However, modern dairy technology has made dairy products an even more potent source of this growth stimulant.  Since 1985, U.S. dairy farmers have been allowed to inject cows with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone that increases milk production. RbGH treatment produces an increase in IGF-1 in cow’s milk.53,54  IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization.53   The overall effect is that milk seems to raise IGF-1 levels in people more than any other component of our diet.55

The direct evidence of the effects of cow’s milk on IGF-1 levels in people has been provided by the dairy industry’s own efforts. Two recent studies, one on adolescent girls and the other on postmenopausal women, showed increasing milk consumption actually raises plasma levels of IGF-1 in the person’s body by an average of 10%.56,57  Their take on this is, “this is a beneficial effect” because IGF-1 stimulates bone growth.  But, the actual lasting consequences should deliver the final deathblow to dairy products:IGF-1 promotes the growth of cancer.  This growth promoter has been strongly linked to the development of cancer of the breast, prostate, lung, and colon.58  Excess IGF-1 stimulates cell proliferation and inhibits cell death – two activities you definitely don’t want when cancer cells are involved.58

There is more to cancer promotion by dairy foods than IGF-1.  Most dairy products are high in saturated fat – and fat is the number one suspect when it comes to the cause of most common cancers in Western societies (for example, breast, prostate, colon, kidney, pancreas).  Recent studies have linked the sugar (lactose) and fat in milk with ovarian cancer,59,60  and the calcium in milk lowers concentrations of a specific form of vitamin D that protects against prostate cancer, raising men’s overall risk.61,62  (See my February 2003 Newsletter for more information on diet and prostate cancer.)  Hormones (estrogens) are also involved in cancers of reproductive organs, like breast and uterine cancer.  There are several reasons dairy products raise a woman’s hormone levels – causing a variety of hormone-dependent problems from early onset of menstruation (menarche) to PMS and uterine fibroids – but one is unique to cow’s milk.  Cows are milked even while they are pregnant. As a result of the pregnancy, cows secrete high levels of estrogen into their milk.63

Will the UMP Advertise that Dairy Is Simply Liquid Meat?

Red meat has become a “dirty word” when it comes to health.  At the opposite end of the spectrum of opinions on food is cow’s milk – one of the world’s most trusted foods.   Do you remember the “Basic Four Food Groups?”  Dairy was usually placed first in this chart which was hung in every schoolroom (and by no coincidence the dairy industry also provided the chart).    If you compare closely the nutritional make up of meat and dairy you will see why I call dairy products “liquid meats.”64


Ground Chuck

Cheddar Cheese


Whole Milk

% of calories
from fat
68% 73% 49% 50%
% of calories from protein 32% 25% 22% 21%
% of calories from carbohydrates 0% 2% 29% 29%
Fiber (grams) 0 0 0 0
Cholesterol mg per 100 cal 22 27 21 22
Vitamin C 0 0 0 0

Dairy products are deficient in iron and beef is deficient in calcium; both contain too little dietary fiber, essential fat (linoleic acid), and vitamin C and B3 (niacin) to meet human nutritional requirements.64  Heavy consumption of either of these food groups – loaded with fat and cholesterol – will result in the diseases common to affluent societies, such as obesity, heart disease, strokes, type-2 diabetes and cancer, to name just a few serious problems.65

If a patient bargained with me, “I’ll give up only one of the first two food groups – meat or milk – in hopes of getting well,”  my recommendation for almost all common health problems in Western society would be, “You’re likely to get the most benefits if you give up the dairy products.”


By going to the National Library of Medicine at you can view the abstracts of most of these studies, and many times secure the original paper.

1)  Dairy Management Inc.™.

2)  Wong S. Recalls of foods and cosmetics due to microbial contamination reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. J Food Prot 2000 Aug;63(8):1113-6

3)  Chapman PA.  Sources of Escherichia coli O157 and experiences over the past 15 years in Sheffield, UK.  Symp Ser Soc Appl Microbiol. 2000;(29):51S-60S.

4)  Lund BM.  Pasteurization of milk and the heat resistance of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis: a critical review of the data.  Int J Food Microbiol. 2002 Jul 25;77(1-2):135-45.

5)  Gonda M.  Bovine immunodeficiency virus.  AIDS. 1992 Aug;6(8):759-76

6)  Sargeant JM. Associations between farm management practices, productivity, and bovine leukemia virus infection in Ontario dairy herds.  Prev Vet Med. 1997 Aug;31(3-4):211-21.

7)  VanLeeuwen JA,.  Seroprevalence of infection with Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, bovine leukemia virus, and bovine viral diarrhea virus in maritime Canada dairy cattle.  Can Vet J. 2001 Mar;42(3):193-8.

8)  Trono KG. Seroprevalence of bovine leukemia virus in dairy cattle in Argentina: comparison of sensitivity and specificity of different detection methods. Vet Microbiol.2001 Nov 26;83(3):235-48.

9)  Hursting SD.  Diet and human leukemia: an analysis of international data.  Prev Med. 1993 May;22(3):409-22.

10)  Howell MA.  Factor analysis of international cancer mortality data and per capita food consumption.  Br J Cancer. 1974 Apr;29(4):328-36.

11)  Kristensen P.  Incidence and risk factors of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture.  Scand J Work Environ Health. 1996 Feb;22(1):14-26.

12)  Reif J.  Cancer risks in New Zealand farmers.  Int J Epidemiol. 1989 Dec;18(4):768-74.

13)  Blair A.  Leukemia cell types and agricultural practices in Nebraska.  Arch Environ Health. 1985 Jul-Aug;40(4):211-4.

14)  Donham KJ.  Epidemiologic relationships of the bovine population and human leukemia in Iowa. Am J Epidemiol. 1980 Jul;112(1):80-92.

15)Jacobs RM.  Detection of multiple retroviral infections in cattle and cross-reactivity of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 proteins using bovine and human sera in a western blot assay.  Can J Vet Res. 1992 Oct;56(4):353-9.

16)  Johnson J. Molecular biology and pathogenesis of the human T-cell leukaemia/lymphotropic virus Type-1 (HTLV-1). Int J Exp Pathol. 2001 Jun;82(3):135-47.

17)  Whetstone CA.  Examination of whether persistently indeterminate human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western immunoblot reactions are due to serological reactivity with bovine immunodeficiency-like virus. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Apr;30(4):764-70.

18)  Ferrer JF.  Milk of dairy cows frequently contains a leukemogenic virus.  Science.1981 Aug 28;213(4511):1014-6.

19)  Nuotio L. Eradication of enzootic bovine leukosis from Finland. Prev Vet Med. 2003 May 30;59(1-2):43-9.

20)  Work Group on Cow’s Milk Protein and Diabetes Mellitus.  Infant feeding practices and their possible relationship to the etiology of diabetes mellitus.  Pediatrics 94:752, 1994.

21)  Iacono G.  Intolerance of cow’s milk and chronic constipation in children. N Engl J Med. 1998 Oct 15;339(16):1100-4.

22)  Yimyaem P.  Gastrointestinal manifestations of cow’s milk protein allergy during the first year of life. J Med Assoc Thai. 2003 Feb;86(2):116-23.

23)  Juntti H. Cow’s milk allergy is associated with recurrent otitis media during childhood.  Acta Otolaryngol. 1999;119(8):867-73.

24)  Tikkanen S.  Status of children with cow’s milk allergy in infancy by 10 years of age.  Acta Paediatr. 2000 Oct;89(10):1174-80.

25)  Oranje AP.  Natural course of cow’s milk allergy in childhood atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002 Dec;89(6 Suppl 1):52-5.

26)  Bahna S.  Allergies to Milk.  Grune and Stratton, New York.

27)  School Milk Pilot Test:

28)   Results of School Milk Pilot Test:

29) Greg Miller’s Comments on Obesity:

30)  Parikh SJ.  Calcium intake and adiposity.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Feb;77(2):281-7.

31)  Barr SI. Increased dairy product or calcium intake: is body weight or composition affected in humans?  J Nutr. 2003 Jan;133(1):245S-248S.

32)  Barr SI.  Effects of increased consumption of fluid milk on energy and nutrient intake, body weight, and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy older adults.  J Am Diet Assoc. 2000 Jul;100(7):810-7.

33)  Baylin A. Adipose tissue biomarkers of fatty acid intake.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Oct;76(4):750-7.

34)  National Medical Association:

35)  Bertron P.  Racial bias in federal nutrition policy, Part I: The public health implications of variations in lactase persistence.  J Natl Med Assoc. 1999 Mar;91(3):151-7.

36)  Schecter A.  Dioxins in U.S. food and estimated daily intake. Chemosphere. 1994 Nov-Dec;29(9-11):2261-5.

37)  Maurer M.  Neutralization of Western diet inhibits bone resorption independently of K intake and reduces cortisol secretion in humans. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2003 Jan;284(1):F32-40.

38)  Remer T.  Influence of diet on acid-base balance.  Semin Dial. 2000 Jul-Aug;13(4):221-6.

39)  Frassetto L.   Diet, evolution and aging–the pathophysiologic effects of the post-agricultural inversion of the potassium-to-sodium and base-to-chloride ratios in the human diet.  Eur J Nutr. 2001 Oct;40(5):200-13.

40)  Remer T. Potential renal acid load of foods and its influence on urine pH.  J Am Diet Assoc. 1995 Jul;95(7):791-7.

41) Abelow B.  Cross-cultural association between dietary animal protein and hip fracture: a hypothesis.  Calcific Tissue Int 50:14-8, 1992.

42)  Frassetto LA .  Worldwide incidence of hip fracture in elderly women: relation to consumption of animal and vegetable foods. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Oct;55(10):M585-92.

43)  McDougall J.  The Great Debate.  High vs. low protein.

44)  Recker RR.  The effect of milk supplements on calcium metabolism, bone metabolism and calcium balance.  Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 Feb;41(2):254-63.

45)  Munger RG.  Prospective study of dietary protein intake and risk of hip fracture in postmenopausal women.  Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jan;69(1):147-52.

46) Massey LK.  Dietary animal and plant protein and human bone health: a whole foods approach. J Nutr. 2003 Mar;133(3):862S-865S.

47)  Teegarden D.  Dietary calcium, protein, and phosphorus are related to bone mineral density and content in young women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Sep;68(3):749-54.

48)  Kerstetter JE.  Low protein intake: the impact on calcium and bone homeostasis in humans.  J Nutr. 2003 Mar;133(3):855S-861S.

49)  New SA.  Calcium, protein, and fruit and vegetables as dietary determinants of bone health.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 May;77(5):1340-1.

50)  Kanis JA.  The use of calcium in the management of osteoporosis.  Bone. 1999 Apr;24(4):279-90.

51)  Weinsier R.  Dairy foods and bone health: examination of the evidence.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Sep;72(3):681-9.

52)  Hegsted DM.  Fractures, calcium, and the modern diet.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Nov;74(5):571-3.

53)  Mepham TB.  Safety of milk from cows treated with bovine somatotropin.  Lancet.1994 Jul 16;344(8916):197-8.

54)  Juskevich JC.  Bovine growth hormone: human food safety evaluation.  Science.1990 Aug 24;249(4971):875-84.

55)  Holmes MD.  Dietary correlates of plasma insulin-like growth factor I and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 concentrations.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2002 Sep;11(9):852-61.

56)  Cadogan J. Milk intake and bone mineral acquisition in adolescent girls: randomised, controlled intervention trial. BMJ 1997;315:1255-1260.

57)  Heaney R.  Dietary changes favorably affect bone remodeling in older adults.  J Am Diet Assoc 99:1228-33, 1999.

58)  Yu H. Role of the insulin-like growth factor family in cancer development and progression.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Sep 20;92(18):1472-89.

59)  Cramer DW, Harlow BL, Willet WC. Galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to the risk of ovarian cancer. Lancet 1989;2:66-71.

60)  Mettlin CJ, Piver MS: A case-control study of milk-drinking and ovarian cancer risk.American Journal of Epidemiology 132(5): 871-876, 1990.

61)  Giovannucci E. Calcium and fructose intake in relation to risk of prostate cancer.  Cancer Res. 1998 Feb 1;58(3):442-7.

62)  Chan J. Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians’ Health Study.  Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Oct;74(4):549-54.

63)  Janowski T.  Mammary secretion of oestrogens in the cow.  Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2002 Jul;23(1-2):125-37.

64)  J Pennington.  Bowes & Church’s Food Values of Portions Commonly Used.  17thEd. Lippincott. Philadelphia- New York. 1998.

65)  Weisburger J.  Eat to live, not live to eat.  Nutrition 2000; 16:767-73.