Twenty Potatoes

Getting Well On Twenty Potatoes a Day

By    |   Posted on January 7, 2013 

 

Potatoes570x2991 Getting Well On Twenty Potatoes a Day

Chris Voigt is the executive director of the Washington State Potato Commission. In an effort to educate the public about the nutritional value of potatoes, he ate 20 potatoes a day, for 60 days straight. That’s right, his diet consisted of only potatoes and nothing else. No toppings, no chili, no sour cream, no cheese, no gravy – just potatoes and maybe some seasonings or herbs and a little oil for some of the cooking.

Watch the video about Chris Voigt’s potato diet:

Chris’s diet started on October 1, 2010 and ended November 29, 2010. His mission was to show the world that the potato is so healthy that you could live off them alone for an extended period of time without any negative impact to your health.

Of course, those of us involved in the science and practice of healthy living were curious what impact this would have on his health and well-being. We all know how potatoes have received a lot of bad press over the last few years. They’ve been said to be high in the glycemic index, will raise your blood sugar, increase your risk for diabetes, raise your triglycerides and increase your risk for heart disease and even possibly some cancers.

For the record, his goal was not to lose weight but to consume enough calories (2,200) to maintain his weight – which is the equivalent of 20 average potatoes a day.

Take a look at Chris’s numbers:

Before (9/24/2010)
Height: 6’1″
Weight: 197
BMI: 26
Cholesterol: 214 (high)
Triglycerides: 135
HDL: 45
LDL: 142 (high)
Glucose: 104 (high)
Chol/HDL ratio: 4.75
LDL/HDL ratio: 3.15

After 60 Days (11/29/2010)
Height: 6’1″
Weight: 176
BMI: 23
Cholesterol: 147
Triglycerides: 75
HDL: 48
LDL: 84
Glucose: 94
Chol/HDL ratio: 3.0
LDL/HDL ratio: 1.75

Overall Results (After 60 Days)
Weight: -21 lbs (-11%)
BMI : -3 pt
Cholesterol:-67 pts (-31%)
Triglycerides: -60 pts (-44%)
HDL: +3 pt
LDL: -58 pts (-41%)
Glucose: -10 pts (-9%)
Chol/HDL ratio:-1.75 pts (-37%)
LDL/HDL ratio: -1.40 pts (-44%)

As we can see, even though Chris was not attempting to lose weight, he did; but more importantly he had highly significant reductions in his cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL, glucose, TC/HDL ratio, LDL/HDL ratio. These numbers indicate that Chris dramatically reduced his risk for heart disease and diabetes.

The improvements were in fact greater than what we see from drugs and many intensive lifestyle programs. And he did it all in 60 days!

While I would not recommend an all potato diet for the long-term for anyone, all of this points to the simple fact that in spite of all the bad press, potatoes are a nutritious and healthy food.

Ultra-Runner

How a Plant-Based Diet Helped Make Me an Ultra-Runner

By    |   Posted on January 2, 2013 

 

Kathleen570x299 How a Plant Based Diet Helped Make Me an Ultra Runner

I sat in my college nutrition class listening to my professor talk about nutrition. He mentioned that you could be a vegan or vegetarian and meet all your requirements to be healthy. I thought to myself, “Oh this guy is crazy! You need to eat meat, I mean, where would you get your protein from?”

 

I have been athletic all my life and was good at all the sports I played growing up. I maintained great fitness throughout adulthood. In 2004 I decided I wanted to run a marathon. I started running in high school and have always maintained a steady base of 3-6 miles. I figured I would read up on training for a marathon and do it right, nutrition and all.

My diet at the time consisted mainly of meat, dairy, potatoes, bread, with a little bit of fruit and vegetables. I had no problems at all with my marathon training program until I reached my higher mileage of 12+ miles. At one point I had run a few 18 milers and my body said no way. My joints were achy and it took me a week to recover just from one long run. On top of that, my immune system was crashing. I was getting sick frequently and my digestive problems seemed to get worse. I was 33 at the time and thought this should not be happening. So I backed off the running but kept my goal of running a marathon for a later date.

In the meantime, I had three young children I was raising. The colds and flus were never-ending and the diagnosis of my oldest daughter with juvenile arthritis was all I could take. I knew diet and disease were related so I decided to do some research. I learned that dairy can have horrible health effects on children. So I immediately eliminated all milk products from their diets. Once we eliminated it, my children’s health turned around. For myself, I put dairy aside too. I was stronger, less achy and soon able to run my first marathon.

Given the good results we were having sans dairy, I decided to do some research on eliminating meat. After a year, I decided that going on a plant-based diet would be a great thing to do. Shortly after all the animal-based food was gone, my health and athletic performance improved again. And in 2009 I finished my first Ironman race. I loved it so much I did it again in 2010 and finished an hour faster. On top of that I have finished numerous marathons and ultra-marathons. My recovery is faster than ever, and frequent colds are a thing of the past.

All the vitamins and minerals I get from plants aid in my recovery and keep me going strong. I have not supplemented with any protein powders of any sort and I have never felt stronger and healthier in my life. I am hoping this year will be the year I finish my first 100-mile ultra-marathon. I wish I could let my college professor know he was right.

Parkinson Disease

Red Meat, Vitamin B2 Deficiency, and Parkinson Disease

Recently, someone in my family got a diagnosis of Parkinson disease, which is the same disease that Michael J. Fox has. So naturally I searched the medical literature to see if there was a dietary angle to the disease. There is, and it’s very exciting! Removing red meat from the diet and correcting a vitamin B2 deficiency might prevent Parkinson disease, and it might even help reverse some of the effects of the disease. This would actually change the course of the disease, whereas all doctors can do at present is treat its symptoms.


How I Searched the Medical Literature

I went to http://www.pubmed.com/ and clicked on MeSH Database. Then I typedParkinson disease in the search box and clicked onGo. One of the results was Parkinson disease. I clicked on that and selected the subheading “diet therapy” and added that to the search box. Then I clicked on Search PubMed.

What I Found

One of the articles that I found pointed out that Parkinson disease is far more common in elderly people in Europe and North America than it is in elderly sub-Saharan Black African, rural Chinese, and Japanese people. In other words, it’s far more common in people who eat a lot of meat than in people who eat a heavily plant-based diet.

Another interesting article suggested that Parkinson disease might result from two separate problems related to diet and nutrition (High doses of riboflavin and the elimination of dietary red meat promote the recovery of some motor functions in Parkinson’s disease patients. C.G. Coimbra and V.B.C. Junqueira. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 36: 1409-1417, 2003). The first problem is an overload of iron from eating too much red meat. The second is some problem in the way the body handles riboflavin (vitamin B2). To put these ideas to the test, the researchers tested 31 consecutive Parkinson disease patients who entered their clinic. Every single one of them had abnormally low levels of vitamin B2 in their bloodstream, even though they were eating food that should have provided enough vitamin B2. In comparison, only 3 out of 10 patients with other neurodegenerative diseases had a vitamin B2 deficiency. The Parkinson patients were also big red meat eaters. The researchers told the Parkinson disease patients to stop eating red meat and to take 30 mg of riboflavin three times a day. The patients who followed this advice regained some of their lost motor skills. Mildly afflicted patients became completely asymptomatic, and even some of the more severely afflicted patients improved a lot. These findings were dramatic and exciting, and this article should have lit a fire under the researchers who are studying Parkinson disease. Here was a simple, cheap, and safe dietary modification that addressed the actual cause of the disease, and could even reverse some of its effects.

Unfortunately, people tend to discard the results of dietary studies out of hand, partly because these studies can’t follow the same format as a drug trial. For example, you can’t “blind” people to what they’re eating, so there’s never a “placebo control.” Also, some people become totally unhinged if they hear that the foods they like aren’t good for them. Predictably, someone wrote in a truly idiotic critique of the study (Comments of H.B. Ferraz et al. ) The authors’ responsewas withering. They said things like “By searching the current medical literature, Ferraz and associates might readily become familiar with countless preliminary studies which have been subsequently confirmed by larger and better controlled research” and “The citations made by Ferraz and associates demonstrate that they have completely missed our point, even though it was clearly emphasized even in the title of our study.” What a smack-down!

Ferraz and coworkers were worried that if people stopped eating red meat, they might end up with a protein deficiency. Well, where do gorillas get their protein? If a diet without red meat provides enough protein for a 500-pound silverback male gorilla, it should provide enough for a human being. And what would be the harm in testing Parkinson disease patients for riboflavin deficiency? Why aren’t Ferraz and coworkers worried about the possibility that we’re missing an opportunity to stop Parkinson disease in its tracks?

The Paleo Diet

John A. McDougall, M.D.The Paleo Diet Is Uncivilized (And Unhealthy and Untrue)

Low-carbohydrate (low-carb) diets are fueling the destruction of human health and our planet Earth. “Low-carbohydrate” means a diet high in animal foods and low in plant foods. Only plants synthesize carbohydrates (sugars). The body parts of animals, including red meat, poultry, seafood, and fish, and eggs, contain no carbohydrates. Animal secretions (like mammalian milk) contain sugars synthesized by plants (the cow eats the grass that made the sugar). The original Atkins Diet is the ultimate in low-carb eating. This diet works by starving the human body of carbohydrates in order to induce a state of illness (ketosis), which can result in weight loss. People become too sick to eat too much.

Paleo ManIn an attempt to remedy the obvious harms to human health caused by very low-carb eating, apologists (including the Atkins Nutritionals) have added fruits and non-starchy vegetables to their programs. This effort is supposed to disguise, and compensate for, the unhealthy effects of consuming animal foods at every meal.

The Paleo Diet: The Newest Promoter of Eating the Planet and Its Inhabitants to Death

The Paleo Diet (also referred to as the Paleolithic Diet, the Paleodiet, the Caveman Diet, the Stone Age Diet, and the Hunter-Gatherer Diet) is the most recent and popular approach to weight loss, improved health, and longevity, and is accomplished by eating large amounts of animal-derived foods (which are no-carbohydrate, and high-protein and/or high-fat foods). The Paleo Diet consists mainly of meat, poultry, shellfish, fish, and eggs; non-starchy orange, green, and yellow vegetables; and fruits and nuts. This approach forbids starches, including all grains, legumes, and potatoes. To its credit it also excludes dairy products and refined sugars. Salt and processed oils (with the exception of olive oil) are also excluded.

This nutritional plan is based on the presumption that our ancestors, living during the Paleolithic era—a period of time from 10,000 to 2.5 million years ago—were nourished primarily by animal foods. According to the basic theory behind Paleo dieting, as a result of more than two millions of years of evolution, we are now genetically adapted to eat what the hunter-gathers ate—mostly animal foods.

The Paleo Diet book (revised 2011) is “the bible” for followers of this approach (page numbers from this book are found in parenthesis in this article). Written by Loren Cordain, PhD, Professor in the Department of Health and Exercise Science at Colorado State University, the Paleo Diet is said to be “the one and only diet that ideally fits our genetic makeup.” (p 3) The author claims that every human being on Earth ate this way for the past 2.5 million years, until the dawn of the Agriculture Revolution (10,000 years ago), when grains, legumes, and potatoes were introduced worldwide. According to Dr. Cordain, “…there wasn’t a single person who did not follow the Paleo Diet.” (p 71). With the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, “Paleo experts” teach that human health and longevity plummeted. By no coincidence, the Agriculture Revolution marks the dawn of civilization. “Civilization” encompasses our advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development, marked by progress in the arts, music, sciences, languages, writing, computers, transportation, and politics.

“If You Repeat a Lie Often Enough, It becomes the Truth”

Teachers of Paleo nutrition claim our ancient ancestors were hunter-gathers with an emphasis on hunting, regardless of what the bulk of current scientific research reports. They base their hypothesis largely upon a flawed review of contemporary hunter-gathers.

Primates, including humans, have practiced hunting and gathering for millions of years. I know of no large populations of primates who have been strict vegans (ate no animal foods at all). However, plants have, with very few exceptions, provided the bulk of the calories for almost all primates. This truth has been unpopular in part because of a well-recognized human trait, sexism. Grandparents, women, and children did the gathering, while men hunted. Glory always goes to the hunters.

When asked about the commonly held idea that ancient people were primarily meat-eaters, the highly respected anthropologist, Nathanial Dominy, PhD, from Dartmouth College responded, “That’s a myth. Hunter-gathers, the majority of their calories come from plant foods…meat is just too unpredictable.” After studying the bones, teeth, and genetics of primates for his entire career as a biological anthropologist, Dr. Dominy, states, “Humans might be more appropriately described as ‘starchivores.’”

Paleo diet proponents spare no effort to ignore and distort science. The general public is at their mercy until they look for themselves at recent publications from the major scientific journals:

* Research published in the journal Nature (on June 27, 2012) reports that almost the entire diet of our very early human ancestors, dating from 2 million years ago, consisted of leaves, fruits, wood, and bark—a diet similar to modern day chimpanzees.

* According to research presented in a 2009 issue of Science, people living in what is now Mozambique, along the eastern coast of Africa, may have followed a diet based on the cereal grass sorghum as long as 105,000 years ago.

* Research presented in a 2011 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Science shows that even the Neanderthals ate a variety of plant foods; starch grains have been found on the teeth of their skeletons everywhere from the warm eastern Mediterranean to chilly northwestern Europe. It appears they even cooked, and otherwise prepared, plant foods to make them more digestible—44,000 years ago.

* A 2010 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencereported that starch grains from wild plants were identified on grinding tools at archeological sites dating back to the Paleolithic period in Italy, Russia, and the Czech Republic. These findings suggest that processing vegetables and starches, and possibly grinding them into flour, was a widespread practice in Europe as far back as 30,000 years ago, or even earlier.

Falsehoods leading the general public to choose foods that threaten our very existence have been challenged for decades, but as I have said before, people like to hear good news about their bad habits; so the Paleo Diet continues to get a highly visible platform with too little public debate.

The Hunter-gather Diet Is Repulsive

Dr. Cordain writes, “For most of us, the thought of eating organs is not only repulsive, but is also not practical as we simply do not have access to wild game.” (p 131). In addition to the usual beef, veal, pork, chicken, and fish, a Paleo follower is required to eat; alligator, bear, kangaroo, deer, rattlesnake, and wild boar are also on the menu. Mail-order suppliers for these wild animals are provided in his book.

More than half (55%) of a Paleo dieter’s food comes from lean meats, organ meats, fish, and seafood. (p 24) Eating wild animals is preferred, but grocery store-bought lean meat from cows, pigs, and chickens works, too. Bone marrow or brains of animals were both favorites of pre-civilization hunter-gathers. (p 27) For most of us the thought of eating bone marrow and brains is repulsive. But it gets worse.

No mention is made by Paleo experts about the frequent and habitual practices of nutritional cannibalism by hunter-gather societies. (Nutritional cannibalism refers to the consumption of human flesh for its taste or nutritional value.) Archeologists have found bones of our ancestors from a million years ago with de-fleshing marks and evidence of bone smashing to get at the marrow inside; there are signs that the victims also had their brains eaten. Children were not off the menu. And we are supposed to eat the favorite meats of our uncivilized, pre-Agriculture Revolution, hunter-gather, ancestors?

The Paleo Diet Is a Nutritional Nightmare

By nature, the Paleo Diet is based on artery-clogging saturated fats and cholesterol, and bone-damaging, acidic proteins from animal foods. Respected researchers find that those modern-day hunter-gather populations who base their diets on meat, such as the Inuits (Eskimos), suffer from heart disease and other forms of atherosclerosis, and those modern-day hunter-gathers who base their diets on plant foods (starches) are free of these diseases. Osteoporosis, from their high animal food-based diets, is also epidemic among meat and fish consuming hunter-gathers, specifically the Inuits.

In an attempt to defend eating animals, Paleo teachers believe the harmful nutrients from these foods are counteracted by the addition of non-starchy fruits and vegetables, and nuts and seeds.

Furthermore, according to Dr. Cordain, a diet very high in animal protein foods would cause a person to become seriously ill with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and eventually death from protein toxicity (also known as “rabbit starvation”). (p 105). For most people the dietary ceiling for protein is 200 to 300 grams a day or about 30 to 40 percent of the normal daily calorie intake. The Paleo Diet is as high as 35% protein. (p 24) Contradicting his warnings, Dr. Cordain consistently and frequently emphasizes that “Protein is the dieter’s friend.” (p 48).

Eating animal-derived foods causes our most common diseases for many well-established reasons, including the indisputable facts that they contain no dietary fiber, are filthy with disease-causing microbes (including mad cow prions, and E. coli and salmonella bacteria), and contain the highest levels of poisonous environmental chemicals found in the food chain. Remember, disease-causing red meats, poultry, fish, and eggs make up 55% of the Paleo Diet.

The June 21, 2012 issue of the British Medical Journal presented the latest updates on the long-term health hazards of low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets, and reported that, “In particular, women had a 5% higher incidence of cardiovascular disease (heart disease) for each tenth of an increase in the low carbohydrate-high protein score, yielding a 62% higher incidence among women in the highest categories of low carbohydrate-high protein diets compared with the lowest.” These low-carb diets, from Atkins to Paleo, are simply dangerous.

Paleo Nutrition Contradicts the Obvious: Most People Have Lived on Starch-based Diets

All large populations of trim, healthy people, throughout verifiable human history, have obtained the bulk of their calories from starch. Examples of once-thriving people include Japanese, Chinese, and other Asians eating sweet potatoes, buckwheat, and/or rice; Incas in South America eating potatoes; Mayans and Aztecs in Central America eating corn; and Egyptians in the Middle East eating wheat. There have been only a few small isolated populations of primitive people, such as the Arctic Eskimos, living at the extremes of the environment, who have eaten otherwise.

Therefore, scientific documentation of what people have eaten over the past thirteen thousand years convincingly supports that starch, not animals, is the traditional diet of people.

Men and women following diets based on grains, legumes, and starchy vegetables have accomplished most of the great feats in history. The ancient conquerors of Europe and Asia, including the armies of Alexander the Great (356 – 323 BC) and Genghis Khan (1162 – 1227 AD) consumed starch-based diets. Caesar’s legions complained when they had too much meat in their diet and preferred to do their fighting on grains. Primarily six foods: barley, maize (corn), millet, potatoes, rice, and wheat, have fueled the caloric engines of human civilization.

The longest living populations on planet Earth today live on starch-based (low-animal food) diets. These include people from Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Nicoya, Costa Rica; Ikaria, Greece; and the Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California, who live in what are called the “Blue Zones.”

The most effective diets ever used to cure people of common day illnesses, like coronary heart disease, type-2 diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, arthritis, and obesity minimize animal foods and require people eat the bulk of their calories from starches, including grains, legumes, and potatoes (foods forbidden to Paleo eaters). Medical giants in starch-based diet-therapy, include Walter Kempner MD, the founder of the Rice Diet at Duke University; Nathan Pritikin; and Roy Swank, MD, founder of the dietary treatment of multiple sclerosis at Oregon Health & Science University.

Widespread Adoption of the Paleo Diet Would Soon Become an Ecological Disaster

The 2006 United Nations’ report Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options concludes: “Livestock have a substantial impact on the world’s water, land and biodiversity resources and contribute significantly to climate change. Animal agriculture produces 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalents), compared with 13.5 percent from all forms of transportation combined.

This report (Livestock’s Long Shadow) from the World Health Organization is a conservative estimate of the destruction caused by the very foods that the Paleo Diet recommends in abundance. Calculations by the World Watch Institute find that over 51 percent of the global warming gases are the result of raising animals for people to eat. A recent report from U.S. Geological Survey estimates that it takes 4,000 to 18,000 gallons of water to produce the beef used to make one juicy hamburger. Every person that Paleo gurus convince to follow an animal food-based diet brings us one more step closer to the end of the world, as we know it.

Civilizations Could Not Have Thrived on the Paleo Diet

According to Dr. Cordain, “The Agriculture Revolution changed the world and allowed civilizations—cities, culture, technological and medical achievements, and scientific knowledge—to develop.” (p 43) In other words, if people had remained on a diet of mostly animal foods (assuming our ancestors actually did), we would still be living in the Stone Age. Fortunately, the Agriculture Revolution, with the efficient production of grains, legumes, and potatoes—the very foods forbidden by the Paleo Diet—allowed us to become civilized.

Dr. Cordain finishes his 2011 revision of his national best-selling bookThe Paleo Diet by warning, “Without them (starches, like wheat, rice, corn, and potatoes), the world could probably support one-tenth or less of our present population…” (p 215) Choose 10 close friends and family members. Which nine should die so that the Paleo people can have their uncivilized way? There is a better way and that is The Starch Solution.

The fat you eat is the fat you wear.


Coke Keeps You Thin
(Sugar Is Not Fattening)

A Randomized Trial of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Adolescent Body Weight by Cara B. Ebbeling, in the October 11, 2012 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, found that “Among overweight and obese adolescents, the increase in BMI was smaller in the experimental group than in the control group after a 1-year intervention designed to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, but not at the 2-year follow-up (the pre-specified primary outcome).”A group of 224 adolescents (124 boys and 100 girls) who reported consuming at least one serving (12 oz.) per day of sugar-sweetened beverages or 100% fruit juice were enrolled. The 1-year intervention consisted of home delivery of non-caloric beverages (e.g., bottled water and “diet” beverages) every 2 weeks, monthly motivational telephone calls with parents (30 minutes per call), and three check-in visits with participants (20 minutes per visit). The authors’ conclusion: “…replacement of sugar-sweetened beverages with non-caloric beverages did not improve body weight over a 2-year period…”

Comment: Laying the blame for obesity on sugar is the latest diversion used by agribusinesses to keep you consuming large quantities of meat and dairy products and oil-laden processed foods. Please do not misunderstand me: I am not saying sugar is health food, but that it is not the primary cause of our national epidemic of obesity. Nor should removal of simple sugars be looked to as the primary solution.

Refined sugar is “empty calories,” which can lead to nutritional imbalances. Simple sugars cause tooth decay, and in sensitive people, can cause a rise in blood fats (triglycerides). Confusion from past research tying sugar to obesity comes from the fact that children who drink more sugar-sweetened beverages also tend to eat more fast food with meat, dairy, and oil (the real culprits) and watch more television (reflecting less physical activity).

Coke keeps you thin! (1961 Coke commercial)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8zTDbpxT8ZI#t=0s

This 1961 Coke commercial, “Coke keeps you thin!” has more much truth to it than the recent dairy campaign to consume milk products to lose weight, for 4 reasons:2

1) The fat you eat is the fat you wear. Milk is 50% fat, low-fat milk is 30% fat, and cheese is 70% fat. Fat is moved almost effortlessly from the glass to the gut. Coke has no fat to wear.

2) Sugar is converted to body fat only with great difficulty. The calories from Coke are 100% simple sugar. Excess sugar calories are not converted to body fat under usual conditions, but are wasted in physical activity and heat production.

3) Sugar is appetite satisfying. As Connie Clausen says in this Coke commercial, “The cold crisp taste of Coke is so satisfying it keeps me from eating something else that might really add those pounds.” (Appetite satisfaction is not provided by dietary fat. You eat fat as if you were a bottomless pit.)

4) Coke is low in calories compared to milk. One 8-ounce glass of Coke has 97 calories, compared to 146 calories in the same size glass of whole milk. More than half the calories in milk are from unsatisfying fats that are almost effortlessly stored in your body fat.

Besides calories, milk is loaded with allergy- and autoimmune disease-causing proteins, poisonous environmental chemicals, artery-clogging saturated fats and cholesterol, precocious puberty causing hormones, and infectious agents, such as leukemia viruses, mad cow prions, and listeria bacteria.

Yes, I am saying that drinking Coke is far less harmful to you and your children’s waistline and health than is drinking cow’s milk. The current campaign in America for solving poor health and obesity by exclusively focusing on sugar as the culprit is doing little or no good, and great damage. The really sickening and fattening foods—meat and dairy products and vegetable oils—are bypassed by making sugar the scapegoat.

1) Cara B. Ebbeling, Ph.D., Henry A. Feldman, Ph.D., Virginia R. Chomitz, Ph.D., Tracy A. Antonelli, M.P.H., Steven L. Gortmaker, Ph.D., Stavroula K. Osganian, M.D., Sc.D., and David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D. A Randomized Trial of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Adolescent Body Weight. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1407-1416

Alicia Silverstone

Alicia Silverstone
Alicia Silverstone
on milk and dairy


By Robert Cohen Executive DirectorText
Only
Tuesday, June 6BATGIRL is no longer CLUELESS.

Alicia Silverstone may be just 23 years old, but she has great wisdom, and she’s become the darling of the NOTMILK movement. At a recent promotion tour for her new movie-musical adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” Silverstone admitted that she has become a new person since giving up all dairy products two years ago.

Silverstone sings in the new movie and recognizes what opera stars and Broadway performers have long known. Milk or cheese before a performance will create a nasal voice and cause stomach distress to the performer. Silverstone commented:

 

“It’s like pure mucous. It’s just creepy. No other species drinks milk from any other species. It’s completely mental.”

Alicia was asked what happened to her body when she stopped consuming milk and dairy products.

 

“My skin became, like, completely glowy. I lost all this weight. I started pooping right.”

Here’s something we would like to see. Alicia, how about posing for carrot juice-mustache ad to grace the NOTMILK site? More and more young fans are beginning to follow your lead.

The most recent issue of the dairy industry magazine Hoard’s Dairyman (May 25, 2000) contains an editorial complaining about the growing popularity of vegetarian diets among high school and college students. Hoard’s writes:

“Rare is the family gathering that doesn’t include at least one teen who will pass on the beef or pork, if not the dairy products and chicken as well.”

Silverstone has become an advocate for both animal and people rights. By abusing animals, we abuse our own bodies. The actress said:

“They take…the cows that are deemed unfit for human consumption, and they’re all ground up and fed back to cows and chickens and turkeys and pigs.”

Alicia, we applaud you. You are a role model who has forsaken millions in endorsements to promote good health by your ethical and compassionate message.

Robert Cohen

THE MILK LETTER

THE MILK LETTER : A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS
Robert M. Kradjian, MD
Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery,
Seton Medical Centre #302 – 1800 Sullivan Ave.
Daly City, CA 94015 USA

Text Only


"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a
nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question
it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated
their effort.

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is
surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was
our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our
mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the
only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's
milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or
water buffalo milk.

Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us.
Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged.
We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and
add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese,
butter, and yogurt.

Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring
images of healthy, beautiful people on our television
screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good
for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to
have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School
lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal
will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our
nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up
an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that
colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other
essential nutrients were made available at no cost for
schools. Cow's milk became "normal."

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings
that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's
milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it
makes them ill.

There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive
of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the
March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join
the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy
products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds
radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic
food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the
mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally
Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our
answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust
any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are
they simply repeating what their professors learned years
ago? What about the new voices urging caution?

I believe that there are three reliable sources of
information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of
nature. The second is to study the history of our own
species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific
literature on the subject of milk.

Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to
1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk
recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of
theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is
no lack of scientific information on this subject. I
reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles
that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and
inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly
less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors
spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side
effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to
believe by the industry. The main focus of the published
reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal
irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions
in infants and children as well as infections such as
salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with
bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as
concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by
blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of
chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among
children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar
infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic
and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed
centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,
sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,
lymphoma and cancer.

I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration
of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living
mammals and what happens with human groups living in close
to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and
interesting group to study. Here we are limited to
speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains
available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt
whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,
muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),
and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel
that these people are not important for us to study,
consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in
almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to
100,000 years ago.

WHAT IS MILK?

Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term
nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.
Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk
for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the
time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced
to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar
example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for
just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and
teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature
only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not
possible for animals living in a natural state to continue
with the drinking of milk after weaning.

IS ALL MILK THE SAME?

Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have
settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size,
and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems
'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our
customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of
another species of mammal?

Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk
of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps
the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly
some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm
not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is
for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for
calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly,
this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good
judgement on this one.

Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal
is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of
that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in
protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has
five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is
markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to
human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as
much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.
(Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It
simply is not designed for humans.

Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not
only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative
composition that is critical for the very best in health and
growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical
doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the
crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop
its unique specializations.

Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological
development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not
have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle
groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the
demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's
hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material
for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.

Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it
can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992
(Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly
placed premature infants into two groups. One group received
a proper formula, the other group received human breast
milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children
were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing,
the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well,
why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the
rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph
Holman described an infant who developed profound
neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous
fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid -
just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha
linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the
neurological disorders cleared.

In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and
Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem
in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.

In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found
that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency
syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s
pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas
without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research,
the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem.
Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is
markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.

WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE

Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000
pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000
pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics,
hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding;
that's how.

The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine
growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is
supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to
Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the
milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn,
Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there
have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on
the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned
BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with
adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules
usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but
I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth
hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked
increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then,
requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the
antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is
uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt
that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk.
A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed
to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling
would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is
awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can
consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer
burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any
surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support
price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757
million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on
average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer
Reports, May 1992: 330-32).

Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This
includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones.
Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are
simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be
horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from
one to one and a half million white blood cells per
millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't
already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to
describe white cells where they don't belong would be to
call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is
it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally,
will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The
United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that
the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the
public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only
4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.

As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman
claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still
think that milk is the safest product we have."

Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the
following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were
contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This
from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The
Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in
Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate
(Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).

What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found
few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When
they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent
of the milk samples showed drug traces.

Let's focus in on this because itÂ’s critical to our
understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a
disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so
drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the
relatively high level. A more powerful test called the
'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per
billion.

One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are
forever getting infections around the udder that require
ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us
that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears
in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the
University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk',
milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis
of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow
cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff.
Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has
mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, itÂ’s in the
study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages
containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.

IT GETS WORSE

Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge
study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had
contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the
sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it--
dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are
concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of
interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had
only half the levels of contamination).

A recent report showed an increased concentration of
pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer
when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic
disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature
describe problems. Just scan these titles:

1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed
Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced
Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906
3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in
Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15

There are many others. There are dozens of studies
describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in
children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk
allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are
transmitted to the infant.

A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of
Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in
infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to
provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used
before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its
use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre
Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation,
cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in
infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-
borne infections and contaminants, and said:

Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of
uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole
bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole
milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't
it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human
nutrition to come to an end?

In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:

It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the
infant in the first year of life because of its association
with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron
that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a
day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal
bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.

I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be
consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose
intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of
atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.

In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known
pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he
articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for
the first two years of life. Here is his quotation:

I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from
the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk
is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence
of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous
and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a
study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it
will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or
economic profit involved.

OTHER PROBLEMS

Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination.
Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be
traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major
problem and some folks want to go back to those times by
insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This
is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of
all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983
were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old
brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More
about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is
still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne
diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association
(251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections
caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk.
This is despite safety precautions.

All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A
Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive
correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein
and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data
from various countries. Conversely a possible negative
relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3
months and diabetes risk.".

Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had
higher levels of serum antibodies to cowsÂ’ milk (Diabetes
Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from
this study:

We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption
is altered in children who will have insulin dependent
diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to
proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of
their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than
normal.

The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating
study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile
insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have
migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times
greater in the English group compared to children remaining
in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase?
The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great
Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the
availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan
as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the
same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe
that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about
adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is
strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic
predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all
in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered
to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant
are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the
last article concluded that the cooler climate in England
altered viruses and caused the very real increase in
diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top
admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to
do with the disease.

The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England
Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported
in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital
for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers.
In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy
product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin
dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children
out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per
1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against
the milk protein during the first year of life, the
researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas
in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in
people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142
Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found
that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies
against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear
evidence that the children had a raging auto immune
disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400
children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will
receive no dairy products during the first nine months of
life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a
definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of
the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the
breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or
the results will be confounded by the transmission of the
cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what
was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very
interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the
association says: "It does not mean that children should
stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should
withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good
protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein"
that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy
industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association
in the past?

LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!

I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is
found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United
States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds.
Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large
percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95
per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation--
if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk
is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples
the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I
sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully
monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981;
213:1014).

This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany
deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of
keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of
the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and
Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from
their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader
in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We
are the worst in the world with the former exception of
Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist
who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a
Master's degree in Public Health.

As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by
pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl
like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in
April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an
accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized
milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed,
killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the
question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this:
"How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they
were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully
active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be
fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases
blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports
of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in
the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern
California.

What happens to other species of mammals when they are
exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question
and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals
exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep,
goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and
chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion
(both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in
milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts
to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human
cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody
formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing.
How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to
humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured
particles?

If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we
could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to
have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so?
Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska,
South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically
higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In
Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine
leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human
leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher
rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers
have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research
shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains
access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the
intestinal wall.

An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana
from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance
of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the
economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they
noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows
with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia
produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis
(increased white blood cell count), the production fell off.
They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of
bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does
this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can
keep it under control? You can get the details on this
business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb.
1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university
department feels that this is an economic and not a human
health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of
Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the
political pressures are too great. You're on you own.

What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of
producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it
can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related
cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:

1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and
Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112
(1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a
Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the
Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A
Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal
Infant. 75:182-186; 1985

In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half
years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had
3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs.
British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.

One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from
Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the
Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is
entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many
people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham
agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption
in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956.,
in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were
highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by
Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest
and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New
Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold
difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a
startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in
Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this,
confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in
migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of
lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to
the USA)!

An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built
at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the
spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human
consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift
from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the
idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.

Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation
between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion
in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his
article follow:

The average intake of protein in many countries is far in
excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive
consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the
causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.
Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of
antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous
membrane.

This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to
which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological
stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is
believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The
gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier
to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating
antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent
lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce
generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and
profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively
estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released
by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production
of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized,
killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause
disease.

Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was
reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9,
March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11
and a half years). For most cancers there was no association
between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma,
there was a strong positive association. If one drank two
glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products),
the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking
less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.

There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be
aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by
the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man.
The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the
second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first
of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and
causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been
known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to
have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep
parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your
good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat
meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept
Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the
unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date,
over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in
keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are
reported as infected each month. The British public is
concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per
cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to
children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease
syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-
Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that
transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."

The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the
feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced
at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected
sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle
and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the
disease does not exist in the United States. However, there
may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at
auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated,
dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to
walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to
electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to
dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they
are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death
is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein
food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that
have been fed this protein have developed a fatal
encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire
colonies of minks have been lost in this manner,
particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective
agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the
ill "downer cows."

The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically
entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-
30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known
to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce
contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered
the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They
say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the
incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.

The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United
States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely
related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do
not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the
sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the
virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The
USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if
antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no
plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of
humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day
we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with
these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the
products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare)
strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle
E. coli deaths of 1993.

A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research,
October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the
Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They
report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to
a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this
disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the
presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia
virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica
Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these
developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to
assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in
the animal kingdom.

OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?

Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty
tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at
Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.
Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent
daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users.
They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce
the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by
numerous investigators.

Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical
School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the
1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed
between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption.
These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk
is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is
facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the
lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis,
but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the
American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989.
These articles come from two of the country's leading
institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.

Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion?
The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569
controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the
International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons
drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold
increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never
drinking whole milk.

For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates
for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or
European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in
this research area feel that the total fat intake is the
difference.

There are not many reports studying an association between
milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though
was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park
Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,
1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer
patients and comparable control subjects:

Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole
milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who
reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the
evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is
related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate
cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and
is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to
drink cows' milk?

It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other
than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion,
these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and
it's a source of amino acids (proteins).

Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all
about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones
and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it,
milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source
for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive
amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium
absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk
provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H
egsted in England has been writing for years about the
geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the
countries with the highest intake of dairy products are
invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He
feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be
given below.

Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium
ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no
effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most
important such article appeared recently in the British
Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry
can't reach. Another study in the United States actually
showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal
women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.
(Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of
hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in
particular protein intake, are critically important. Another
observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note
the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium
among people living on a natural diet without milk.

For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look at
calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting
groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake
estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a
high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is
among the worst in the world. The other instructive group
are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent
protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350
mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women
have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more
children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When
African women immigrate to the United States, do they
develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are
much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic
difference that is modified by diet.

To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your
calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the
cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the
ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants
and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by
eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals
also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all
of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with
their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans
living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

If animal references do not convince you, think of the
several billion humans on this earth who have never seen
cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be
prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest
this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far
less than that seen in the countries where dairy products
are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,
but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are
grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing
on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play
a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a
deterrent to good bone health.

THE PROTEIN MYTH

Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to
"make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the
nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course
milk is fitted right in.

As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein-
-"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily
what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty.
Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

For this information we rely on the most authoritative
source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,
1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary
Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of
interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr.
Richard Havel of the University of California in San
Francisco.

First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been
steadily revised downward in successive editions. The
current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19
through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day
for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know
that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by
.6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large
safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add
some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams
a day if necessary!

Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an
ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not
have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical
for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly
less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated
belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to
avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)
Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and
European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has
serious consequences when maintained over decades. The
problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,
atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence
that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are
related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent
renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the
dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers
of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you
should know that the protein content of human milk is amount
the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?

Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal
carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-
borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose,
but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.

What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems
that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed
into the blood stream without first being broken down into
monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires
the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes
to break down the galactose into glucose.

Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the
ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts
off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us
something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact
that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the
tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not
needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are
lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent
introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow"
milk from another group of mammals that the survival
advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us
to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be
advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the
human beings in the history of the world did. And further,
why was it just the white or light skinned humans who
retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to
lose it?

Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly
recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000
years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration
of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins
and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the
production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does
dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to
sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide
the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources
were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant
calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to
humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only
logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high
degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned
people.

How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely
blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults.
Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are
midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and
abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake
in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk.
The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays
intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A
lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of
$117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)

What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy
products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is
largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy
your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar
in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed
this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the
composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).

One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of
fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to
constipation and bowel disorders.

The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding
in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from
its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the
intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with
articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding,
increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and
vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a
double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency
of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of
childhood allergy.

LOW FAT

One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common
and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't
it?"

The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low
fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the
public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as
calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to
weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87%
water!

"Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat
milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern
is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little
or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein
and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more
of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose
and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to
boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live
in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we
need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys,
and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry
cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond
milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned
about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same
calcium concentration as milk.

SUMMARY

To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk
or use milk products. That is just because we simply want
to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of
our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste
and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our
throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for
us and provided milk in our earliest training and
conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably
the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described
"to die for".

I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious
vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didnÂ’t eat meat, his
diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting
one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice
cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration
for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart -
and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice
cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good
health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had
a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and
helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several
years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation
unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.

So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight
of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body
good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's
nutritional value and safety.

Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully
without cows' milk. You can too.

It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since
childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food."
I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health
and it won't cost anything. What can you lose?

(Article courtesty of Dr. Kradjian and http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILKDOC.HTM)

ZERO DAIRY

TEN REASONS for ZERO DAIRY


1. HEART ATTACKS, STROKES, AND HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE six times
more heart attacks in milk drinkers

Briggs, R. "Myocardial Infarction in Patients Treated with
Sippy and other high Milk Diets,", Circulation, 21:538, 1960

Hartroft, W. "The Incidence of Coronary Heart Disease in
Patients Treated with the Sippy Diet" American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 15:205, 1964

2. DIABETES, AUTISM, SCHIZOPHRENIA milk antibodies in blood
of diabetic children

Dosch, Hans-Michael, "The Possible Link Between Insulin
Dependent (Juvenile) Diabetes Mellitus and Dietary Cow Milk"
Clin Biochem, Vol 26 pp 307-308 August 1993

Sun, ZJ, Cade JR, et al "Beta-casomorphin induces Fos-like
immunoreactivity in discrete brain regions relevant to
schizophrenia and autism" Autism March 1999 vol 3(1) 67-83

Sun, ZJ, Cade JR "A peptide found in schizophrenia and
autism causes behavioral changes in rats" Autism 1999 vol
3(1) 85-95

3. CANCER breast, ovarian, prostate, lung cancer all dairy
linked

Westin, Jerome B. "Carcinogens in Israeli Milk: A Study in
Regulatory Failure" International Journal of Health
Services, Vol 23 No 3 pp. 497-517 1993 Baywood Publishing
Co. Inc.

4. ANTIBIOTIC RESIDUES 30 to 80 different antibiotics cause
chronic resistant infections

5. PESTICIDE RESIDUES linked to cancer, chronic fatigue,
infertility

6. HORMONE RESIDUES menstrual problems, osteoporosis

Baldini, M, Coni, E. et.al. "Presence and Assessment of
Xenobiotic Substances in Milk and Dairy Products" Ann. Ist.
Super. Sanita Vol. 26, N. 2 (1990) pp 167-176

Mepham, TB Public health implication of bovine somatotrophin
use in dairying: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,
Vol 85 Dec1992 pp. 736-739

7. OSTEOPOROSIS National Dairy Council study shows bone loss
caused by milk drinking

Lovendale, M. " The Impact of Dairy Products on Human
Health, the Environment, and the National Budget" Advanced
Health Journal March 1993 No. 4, Advanced Health Center,
Monarch Beach, CA 92629

8. LEUKEMIA VIRUSES 20% of all cows carry leukemia viruses
that can infect humans

Ferrer, J. Milk of dairy cows frequently contains a
leukemogenic virus Science 213:1014 1981

9. ALLERGIES, ASTHMA, CHRONIC SINUSITIS

Gerard J.W. Mackenzie J.W.A. Goluboff N. et.al. Cows Milk
Allergy: Prevalence and Manifestation in an Unselected
Series of Newborns Acta Paediatr Scand. Supplement 234 1973

10. DIGESTIVE PROBLEMS, CANDIDA OVERGROWTH caused by allergy
and antibiotic residues

Info courtesy of M. M. Van Benschoten, OMD, CA

 

Breast Cancer


By Robert Cohen Executive Director Text Only

B = Breast Cancer



The following ten references provide converging lines of evidence that focus upon one central point.
There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in nature, and only one hormone that is identical between any two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like growth factor, or IGF-I. IGF-I survives digestion and has been identified as the KEY FACTOR in breast cancer’s growth.

IGF-I is identical in human and cow.

If you believe that breast feeding “works” to protect lactoferrins and immunoglobulins from digestion (and benefit the nursing infant), you must also recognize that milk is a hormonal delivery system. By drinking cow’s milk, one delivers IGF-I in a bioactive form to the body’s cells. When IGF-I from cow’s milk alights upon an existing cancer…


“Human Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) and bovine IGF-I are identical. Both contain 70 amino acids in the identical sequence.”

Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer. SCIENCE, vol. 249. August 24, 1990.


“IGF-I is critically involved in the aberrant growth of human breast cancer cells.”

M. Lippman. J. Natl. Inst. Health Res., 1991, 3.


“Estrogen regulation of IGF-I in breast cancer cells would support the hypothesis that IGF-I has a regulatory function in breast cancer.”

A.V. Lee, Mol-Cell- Endocrinol., March, 99(2).


“IGF-I is a potent growth factor for cellular proliferation in the human breast carcinoma cell line.”

J.C. Chen, J-Cell-Physiol., January, 1994, 158(1)


“Insulin-like growth factors are key factors for breast cancer growth.”

J.A. Figueroa, J-Cell-Physiol., Nov., 1993, 157(2)


“IGF-I produces a 10-fold increase in RNA levels of cancer cells. IGF-I appears to be a critical component in cellular proliferation.”

X.S. Li, Exp-Cell-Res., March, 1994, 211(1)


“IGF-I plays a major role in human breast cancer cell growth.”

E.A. Musgrove, Eur-J-Cancer, 29A (16), 1993


“IGF-I has been identified as a key factor in breast cancer.”

Hankinson. The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998


“Serum IGF-I levels increased significantly in milk drinkers, an increase of about 10% above baseline but was unchanged in the control group.”

Robert P. Heaney, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 99, no. 10. October 1999


“IGF-1 accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells.”

M. Lippman Science, Vol. 259, January 29, 1993

New York Times

While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales

Katie Orlinsky for The New York Times

A government-created industry group worked with Domino’s Pizza to bolster sales by increasing the cheese on pies.

  • Domino’s Pizza was hurting early last year. Domestic sales had fallen, and a survey of big pizza chain customers left the company tied for the worst tasting pies.
Multimedia
From marketing campaigns, to restaurant menus to your own dinner plate, what evidence are you seeing of more cheese in the American diet? Share your experiences.

Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino’s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 millionmarketing campaign.

Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. “This partnership is clearly working,” Brandon Solano, the Domino’s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times.

But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino’s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories.

And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of theUnited States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting.

Urged on by government warnings about saturated fat, Americans have been moving toward low-fat milk for decades, leaving a surplus of whole milk and milk fat. Yet the government, through Dairy Management, is engaged in an effort to find ways to get dairy back into Americans’ diets, primarily through cheese.

Americans now eat an average of 33 pounds of cheese a year, nearly triple the 1970 rate. Cheese has become the largest source of saturated fat; an ounce of many cheeses contains as much saturated fat as a glass of whole milk.

When Michelle Obama implored restaurateurs in September to help fight obesity, she cited the proliferation of cheeseburgers and macaroni and cheese. “I want to challenge every restaurant to offer healthy menu options,” she told the National Restaurant Association’s annual meeting.

But in a series of confidential agreements approved by agriculture secretaries in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Dairy Management has worked with restaurants to expand their menus with cheese-laden products.

Consider the Taco Bell steak quesadilla, with cheddar, pepper jack, mozzarella and a creamy sauce. “The item used an average of eight times more cheese than other items on their menu,” the Agriculture Department said in a report, extolling Dairy Management’s work — without mentioning that the quesadilla has more than three-quarters of the daily recommended level of saturated fat and sodium.

Dairy Management, whose annual budget approaches $140 million, is largely financed by a government-mandated fee on the dairy industry. But it also receives several million dollars a year from the Agriculture Department, which appoints some of its board members, approves its marketing campaigns and major contracts and periodically reports to Congress on its work.

The organization’s activities, revealed through interviews and records, provide a stark example of inherent conflicts in the Agriculture Department’s historical roles as both marketer of agriculture products and America’s nutrition police.

In one instance, Dairy Management spent millions of dollars on research to support a national advertising campaign promoting the notion that people could lose weight by consuming more dairy products, records and interviews show. The campaign went on for four years, ending in 2007, even though other researchers — one paid by Dairy Management itself — found no such weight-loss benefits.

When the campaign was challenged as false, government lawyers defended it, saying the Agriculture Department “reviewed, approved and continually oversaw” the effort.

Dr. Walter C. Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health and a former member of the federal government’s nutrition advisory committee, said: “The U.S.D.A. should not be involved in these programs that are promoting foods that we are consuming too much of already. A small amount of good-flavored cheese can be compatible with a healthy diet, but consumption in the U.S. is enormous and way beyond what is optimally healthy.”

The Agriculture Department declined to make top officials available for interviews for this article, and Dairy Management would not comment. In answering written questions, the department said that dairy promotion was intended to bolster farmers and rural economies, and that its oversight left Dairy Management’s board with “significant independence” in deciding how best to support those interests.

The department acknowledged that cheese is high in saturated fat, but said that lower milk consumption had made cheese an important source of calcium.

“When eaten in moderation and with attention to portion size, cheese can fit into a low-fat, healthy diet,” the department said.

In its reports to Congress, however, the Agriculture Department tallies Dairy Management’s successes in millions of pounds of cheese served.

In 2007, the department highlighted Pizza Hut’s Cheesy Bites pizza, Wendy’s “dual Double Melt sandwich concept,” and Burger King’s Cheesy Angus Bacon cheeseburger and TenderCrisp chicken sandwich. “Both featured two slices of American cheese, a slice of pepper jack and a cheesy sauce,” the department said.

These efforts, the department reported, helped generate a “cheese sales growth of nearly 30 million pounds.”

Relentless Marketing

Every day, the nation’s cows produce an average of about 60 million gallons of raw milk, yet less than a third goes toward making milk that people drink. And the majority of that milk has fat removed to make the low-fat or nonfat milk that Americans prefer. A vast amount of leftover whole milk and extracted milk fat results.

For years, the federal government bought the industry’s excess cheese and butter, an outgrowth of a Depression-era commitment to use price supports and other tools to maintain the dairy industry as a vital national resource. This stockpile, packed away in cool caves in Missouri, grew to a value of more than $4 billion by 1983, when Washington switched gears.

The government started buying only what it needed for food assistance programs. It also began paying farmers to slaughter some dairy cows. But at the time, the industry was moving toward larger, more sophisticated operations that increased productivity through artificial insemination, hormones and lighting that kept cows more active.

In 1995, the government created Dairy Management Inc., a nonprofit corporation that has defined its mission as increasing dairy consumption by “offering the products consumers want, where and when they want them.”

Dairy Management, through the “Got Milk?” campaign, has been successful at slowing the decline in milk consumption, particularly focusing on schoolchildren. It has also relentlessly marketed cheese and pushed back against the Agriculture Department’s suggestion that people eat only low-fat or fat-free varieties.

In a July letter to the department’s nutrition committee, Dairy Management wrote that efforts to make fat-free cheese have largely foundered because fat is what makes cheese appealing. “Consumer acceptance of low-fat and fat-free cheeses has been limited,” it said.

Agriculture Department data show that cheese is a major reason the average American diet contains too much saturated fat.

Research has found that the cardiovascular benefits in cutting saturated fat may depend on what replaces it. Refined starches and sugar might be just as bad or even worse, while switching to unsaturated fats has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

The department’s nutrition committee issued a new standard this summer calling for saturated fat not to exceed 7 percent of total calories, about 15.6 grams in a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet. Yet the average intake has remained about 11 percent to 12 percent of total calories for at least 15 years.

The department issued nutritional hints in a brochure titled “Steps To A Healthier You!” It instructs pizza lovers: “Ask for whole wheat crust and half the cheese” — even as Dairy Management has worked with pizza chains like Domino’s to increase cheese.

Dairy Management runs the largest of 18 Agriculture Department programs that market beef, pork, potatoes and other commodities. Their budgets are largely paid by levies imposed on farmers, but Dairy Management, which reported expenditures of $136 million last year, also received $5.3 million that year from the Agriculture Department to promote dairy sales overseas.

By comparison, the department’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, which promotes healthy diets, has a total budget of $6.5 million.

Although by law the secretary of agriculture approves Dairy Management’s contracts and advertising campaigns, the organization has become a full-blown company with 162 employees skilled in product development and marketing. It also includes the National Dairy Council, a 95-year-old group that acts as its research and communications arm.

Dairy Management’s longtime chief executive, Thomas P. Gallagher, received $633,475 in compensation in 2008, with first-class travel privileges, according to federal tax filings. Annual compensation for two other officials top $300,000 each.

Mr. Gallagher, who declined to be interviewed for this article, was described by board members, employees and food industry officials as an astute executive and effective champion of the sprawling dairy industry.

“He’s a big thinker,” said David Brandon, former chief executive of Domino’s. “A very creative guy who thinks big and is willing to make bets in helping to drive the business on behalf of his dairy farmers.”

Disputed Research

“Great news for dieters,” Dairy Management said in an advertisement in People magazine in 2005. “Clinical studies show that people on a reduced-calorie diet who consume three servings of milk, cheese or yogurt each day can lose significantly more weight and more body fat than those who just cut calories.”

With milk consumption in decline, Dairy Management had hit on a fresh marketing strategy with its weight-loss campaign.

When the campaign began in 2003, a Dairy Management official said it was inspired by newly relaxed federal rules on health claims and the ensuing “rapid growth of ‘better for you’ products.”

It was based on research by Michael B. Zemel, a University of Tennessee nutritionist and author of “The Calcium Key: The Revolutionary Diet Discovery That Will Help You Lose Weight Faster.” Precisely how dairy facilitates weight loss is unclear, Dr. Zemel said in interviews and e-mails, but in part it involves counteracting a hormone that fosters fat deposits when the body is low on calcium.

Dairy Management licensed Dr. Zemel’s research, promoted his book and enlisted a team of scientific advisers who “identified further research to develop more aggressive claims in the future,” according to a campaign strategy presentation.

One such study was conducted by Jean Harvey-Berino, chairwoman of the Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of Vermont. “I think they felt they had a lot riding on it,” she said of the weight loss claim, “and felt it was a cash cow if it worked out.”

“I’m a big promoter of dairy,” she added, noting that her research was also paid for by Dairy Management.

But by 2004, her study had found no evidence of weight loss. She said Dairy Management took the news poorly, threatening to audit her work. She said she was astonished when the organization pressed on with its ad campaign.

“I thought they were crazy, and that eventually somebody would catch up with them,” she said.

Her study was published in 2005, and at scientific meetings she heard from other researchers who also failed to confirm Dr. Zemel’s work, including Dr. Jack A. Yanovski, an obesity unit chief at the National Institutes of Health.

But in late 2006, Dairy Management was still citing the weight-loss claim in urging the Agriculture Department not to cut the amount of cheese in federal food assistance programs. “The available data provide strong support for a beneficial effect of increased dairy foods on body weight and body composition,” two organization officials wrote, making no mention of Dr. Harvey-Berino’s findings.

Having dismissed the weight-loss claim in 2005, the federal nutrition advisory committee this summer again found the underlying science “not convincing.”

The campaign lasted until 2007, when the Federal Trade Commission acted on a two-year-old petition by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an advocacy group that challenged the campaign’s claims. “If you want to look at why people are fat today, it’s pretty hard to identify a contributor more significant than this meteoric rise in cheese consumption,” Dr. Neal D. Barnard, president of the physicians’ group, said in an interview.

The trade commission notified the group that Agriculture Department and dairy officials had decided to halt the campaign pending additional research. Dr. Zemel said he remained hopeful that his findings would eventually be upheld.

Meanwhile, Dairy Management, which allotted $12.4 million for nutrition research in 2008, has moved on to finance studies on promising opportunities, including the promotion of chocolate milk as a sports recovery drink and the use of cheese to entice children into eating healthy foods like string beans.

An All-Out Campaign

On Oct. 13, Domino’s announced the latest in its Legends line of cheesier pizza, which Dairy Management is promoting with the $12 million marketing effort.

Called the Wisconsin, the new pie has six cheeses on top and two more in the crust. “This is one way that we can support dairy farms across the country: by selling a pizza featuring an abundance of their products,” a Domino’s spokesman said in a news release. “We think that’s a good thing.”

laboratory test of the Wisconsin that was commissioned by The Times found that one-quarter of a medium thin-crust pie had 12 grams of saturated fat, more than three-quarters of the recommended daily maximum. It also has 430 calories, double the calories in pizza formulations that the chain bills as its “lighter options.”

According to contract records released through the Freedom of Information Act, Dairy Management’s role in helping to develop Domino’s pizzas included generating and testing new pizza concepts.

When Dairy Management began working with companies like Domino’s, it first had to convince them that cheese would make their products more desirable, records and interviews show. It provided banners and special lighting for the drive-up window menus at fast food restaurants, recalled Debra Olson Linday, who led Dairy Management’s early efforts in promoting cheese to restaurant chains before leaving in 1997.

By 1999, food retailers and manufacturers were coming to Dairy Management for help.

“Let’s sell more pizza and more cheese!” said two officials with Pizza Hut, which began putting cheese inside its crust after holding development meetings with Dairy Management, according to amemorandum released by the Agriculture Department.

Derek Correia, a former Pizza Hut product innovations chief, said Dairy Management also helped find suppliers for the extra cheese. “We were using four cheeses, if not six, and with a company like Pizza Hut, that is a lot of supply,” he said in an interview.

And unlike with its advertising campaigns, Dairy Management and the Agriculture Department could point to specific results with these projects. The “Summer of Cheese” promotion it developed with Pizza Hut in 2002 generated the use of 102 million additional pounds of cheese, the department reported to Congress.

“More cheese on pizza equals more cheese sales,” Mr. Gallagher, the Dairy Management chief executive, wrote in a guest column in a trade publication last year. “In fact, if every pizza included one more ounce of cheese, we would sell an additional 250 million pounds of cheese annually.”

Working with some of the largest food companies, Dairy Management has also pushed to expand the use of cheese in processed foods and home cooking. The Agriculture Department has reported a 5 percent to 16 percent increase in sales of cheese snacks in stores where Dairy Management has helped grocers reinvent their dairy aisles. Now on display is an array of sliced, grated and cubed products, along with handy recipes for home cooking that use more cheese.

The strategy is focusing on families whose cheese “habit” outpaces their concern about the health risks, Dairy Management documentsshow. One study gave them a name: “Cheese snacking fanatics.”

<nyt_correction_bottom>

<nyt_update_bottom>

A version of this article appeared in print on November 7, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.