4. Dairy
As wholesome as motherhood and apple pie? Most of us have been raised to think of cows’ milk as wholesome. We take it for granted. Throughout history, milk, coming as it does from “mothers,” tends to be a trusted symbol of nurturing and nutrition. We give it to our children. We are told that milk builds strong bones, yet “most research shows that dairy products are not beneficial to bone health”[501] at any age.
The milk of one species is not designed to support the health of another. There are, for example, natural hormones in cows’ milk for the mother cow to pass on to her calf. When humans drink that milk, we ingest those strong hormones that are designed specifically to regulate the biochemistry of another animal’s system, not ours.
Once additional genetically-engineered industrial growth hormones and drugs, such as antibiotics, are added, the milk has become tainted. The contaminants are insidiously invisible to the naked eye, and intentionally unlabeled for financial gain, leaving us vulnerable. Dairy products may look fine, smell fine, and taste fine, but the fact is, they are not fine. We burden our immune systems with a toxic load that deregulates our own species-specific hormones, building a foundation for disease. The hormonal balance of those over forty is especially sensitive to foodborne contaminants, be they chemical, bacterial, or viral.
The hype about milk (and milk products) is an effective marketing strategy by the American Dairy industry, says Harvard research director. “Milk is touted for building strong bones,” yet there is research that “shows otherwise.”[502] The Nutrition chairman at Harvard School of Public Health, Walter Willett, M.D., M.P.H., Dr.P.H., writes: ‘Interestingly, many long-term studies have now examined milk consumption in relation to risk of fractures. With remarkable consistency, these studies do not show reduction in fractures with high dairy product consumption. The hype about milk is basically an effective marketing campaign by the American Dairy industry.’"[503]
“Milk is advocated by various agencies of the U.S. government, legions of physicians, and the $180 million annual advertising budget of the dairy industry itself.”[504]
Dairy intake does not prevent osteoporosis and can actually trigger fractures, according to a Harvard study. “There is much debate over whether long-term consumption of dairy products helps bones at all. A good deal of evidence suggests that it does not”. . . . In a 12-year Harvard study of 78,000 women, those who got the most calcium from dairy products received no benefit and actually broke more bones than the women who got little or no calcium from dairy.[505] D. Feskanich, W.C. Willett, M.J. Stampfer, and G.A. Colditz of Channing Laboratory, Harvard Medical School, published “Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study” in the American Journal of Public Health. Their results state, “We found no evidence that higher intakes of milk or calcium from food sources reduce fracture incidence.”[506] They conclude:: “These data do not support the hypothesis that higher consumption of milk or other food sources of calcium by adult women protects against hip or forearm fractures.”[507] Other studies show that “[t]here is little evidence to suggest that a high intake of calcium from dairy or other sources reduces the risk of osteoporotic fractures among men.”[508]
Also, a “study of elderly men and women in Sydney, Australia, showed that those who consumed the most dairy products had double the hip fracture rate of those who consumed the least. These findings indicate that despite the amount of calcium in dairy products, other dairy compounds accelerate calcium loss. Animal proteins and salt are two likely suspects. To make matters worse, in North America, dairy products are often consumed by people who already have high-salt, meat-based diets.”[509]
“Those advertisements pushing milk as the answer to strong bones are almost inescapable. But does ‘got milk’ really translate into ‘got strong bones?’”[510] Harvard School of Public Health states that there “are those who believe that consuming a lot of milk and other dairy products will have little effect on the rate of fractures but may contribute to problems such as heart disease or prostate cancer.”[511] Harvard states, “[S]tudies suggest that high calcium intake doesn't actually appear to lower a person's risk for osteoporosis. For example, in the large Harvard studies of male health professionals and female nurses, individuals who drank one glass of milk (or less) [which includes none] per week were at no greater risk of breaking a hip or forearm than were those who drank two or more glasses per week. Other studies have found similar results.”[512]
Genetically engineered hormones, such as Bovine Growth Hormone, pharmaceuticals, and you: an overview of the milk-->illness-->medications-->more milk cycle. “Milk and dairy products produced in the United States--unless otherwise labeled--may come from cows routinely injected with a genetically engineered synthetic hormone called recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH),”[513] [or rBGH, “Monsanto’s original acronym,”[514] which is now called Bovine Somatotropin (BST)on Monsanto’s website, where the incendiary term “hormone” has been removed from the name]. These terms are used interchangeably in quotes throughout the Dairy section. BGH is manufactured by Monsanto as PosilacÒ.
It helps to know something about Monsanto (founded in 1901) to understand how BGH, a synthetic hormone that was poorly tested for safety before it got FDA approval,[515] enters American homes every day in our milk and dairy products, without our even knowing it (Monsanto fights labeling). Monsanto’s first product was saccharine,[516] and later on, they introduced aspartame as Equal. They created and manufactured Agent Orange, and also produced AlochlorÒ 1254 [polychlorinatedbiphenyls 54% chlorine by weight, a/k/a AroclorÒ 1254] PCB-oil, which was PCBs used in paint formulations that came into contact with food, feed [through flaking silo paint] and water for humans and animals,[517] --known “carcinogen,” known “reproductive toxin,” “suspected” endocrine disruptor,[518] and Alochlor is also documented as toxic rain at concentrations that would make the rainwater poisonous as drinking water.[519] “Commercial PCB mixtures were used widely: as dielectric fluids in capacitors and transformers, heat transfer fluids, hydraulic fluids, lubricating and cutting oils, and as additives in pesticides, paints, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, sealants and plastics.”[520]
“[S]tudies published in leading medical journals showed that PCBs cause a statistically significant increase in lung cancer, and damage to the immune system, reproductive system, nervous and endocrine system. . . . [R]esearchers found liver cancers at 15 times the normal rate.”[521] In 2002, thirty-one years after Monsanto had stopped producing PCBs, “After five hours of deliberation, an Alabama jury concluded that a Monsanto plant--which produced polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Anniston between 1929 and 1971--had polluted nearby properties with the suspected endocrine disrupter and carcinogen.”[522] “[T]he company knew about serious local contamination but didn’t warn the public,” thereby threatening the lives and health of the local townspeople “for decades to come,” [523] “involving PCB claims from [at least] an additional 15,000 Anniston plaintiffs.”[524]
”Monsanto is the only company in the world that produces the artificial growth hormone [BGH], and as Banc One Securities estimates, Monsanto earns $270 million every year on this one product.”[525] It is possible that, for consumers, BGH may be a habit-forming milk additive, just as nicotine is added to cigarettes to enhance sales. “[I]n some cases an inability to successfully wean treated cows off the drug BGH” was observed.[526] This is a form of addiction to BGH that may affect humans as well. Reports on human growth hormone (HGH) indicate that there is an endorphin reinforcing effect. Hormones, such as estrogen, are also known to be addictive.
Monsanto, which bills itself as an agricultural company, has a long history of ties to pharmaceuticals to fund its agriculture unit, such as “co-promoting Celebrex” (blockbuster non-steroidal compound for human arthritis) with Pfizer, Inc.[527] through Monsanto’s then-pharmaceutical unit, Searle. Monsanto would use the profits from pharmaceuticals, such as aspirin (1917, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug—-Monsanto remained the most prolific producer of aspirin in the U.S. until the 1980s), Ambien (1993, a non-barbiturate insomnia medication made notorious when The New York Times reported it as a drug hyped by direct-to-consumer advertising that is responsible, “in part,” for its use by over 26 million Americans in 2006,[528] that can induce temporary amnesia, sleep-walking, sleep-driving, and violent somnambulant outbursts, conditions used in legal cases as “the Ambien defense”[529]—-transferred from Monsanto to Sanofi-Aventis in 2003), and the aforementioned popular Celebrex (1998), as financial fuel to retain colossal multinational biotechnology status. Monsanto’s “brands [also] include [or have included] such household names as Advil painkiller, Centrum vitamins and Nutrasweet sugar substitute.”[530]
“Monsanto has assiduously kept the details of its empire-building out of the public eye.”[531] But Monsanto has a history of complex close business relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Searle, Pfizer, American Home Products (now known as Wyeth--a near-merger with AHP (Wyeth), makers of “Fen-Phen” of heart valve disease fame, and controversial synthetic HRT products, would have made Monsanto “the nation’s top seller of prescription drugs,”[532] and last of all, a relationship with Pharmacia/Upjohn, which owned Monsanto through a merger[533] until 2002, and which is now owned by Pfizer.
Lucrative is the word for “the efforts of agribusiness drug companies to get genetically engineered hormones into our nation’s dairy cows.”[534] Promising farmers that “POSILAC is a proven tool for increasing dairy cow milk production and profitability,”[535] they artificially induce “the cow to produce more milk than is appropriate for her body.”[536]
Monsanto’s advertising boasts, “The use of supplemental bST by dairy farmers, both large and small, generally increases milk production by 10 to 15 percent using the same number of cows [italics added].”[537] “rBGH is bad for family farmers, since it artificially increases the supply of milk on the market, driving down prices paid to smaller farmers and giving large, intensive confinement dairy farms a competitive advantage.”[538]
“In 1930 the average cow produced 12 pounds of milk a day. By 1988 the average had risen to 39 pounds.”[539] “If BGH [a/k/a bST] increases production by” 15 percent, “that volume rises to” 45 “pounds a day per cow. This leads to a corresponding increase in veterinary problems associated with intensive milk production.”[540] Monsanto’s website says, “Research has shown that, by following proper use instructions, milk production will increase an average of 10 pounds of milk per supplemented cow per day.” That would bring the total to approximately 49 pounds of milk per cow per day, which is closer to the national average, which is 50 pounds of milk per cow per day, when a calf today needs only 16 pounds of milk per day.[541] Something unnatural is occurring in this process.
“Pharmaceutical companies have spent millions of dollars developing genetically engineered hormones. Now that BGH has become an integral part of dairy farming, these drug companies are reaping even greater profits.”[542]
“BGH also stimulates drug company profits by increasing the sale of other pharmaceuticals. As BGH forces cows to produce more milk than is healthy for their bodies, the cows become more susceptible to infection and disease. This, in turn, creates additional needs for antibiotics and other drugs, which these companies are all too happy to provide.”[543] Then when dairy makes you, the consumer, ill, Big Pharma supplies your medications (while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend more milk products to you), and the cycle then repeats, unless you, the consumer, stop buying milk and milk products.
Medicines have become a truly commercial enterprise, but not by accident, rather by design. “[F]ormer Merck CEO Henry Gadsden is quoted in a 1976 Fortune article, confessing that it had long been his dream to make drugs for healthy people. Because then, Merck would be able to 'sell to everyone.’"[544] The bottom line appears to be “sell to everyone.” Merck is not alone in this goal, competing with others in the vast pharmaceutical marketplace.
Dairy is the number one cause of human allergies, among other serious health problems, partly due to the needless contamination by industrial hormones and drugs described above. Christiane Northrup, M.D. states: "Dairy is a tremendous mucus producer and a burden on the respiratory, digestive, and immune systems."[545] Ads for blockbuster allergy, asthma, and indigestion medications run every few minutes on television, alongside dairy commercials. What’s to stop Monsanto from merging with a pharmaceutical company selling Benadryl, Foradil, and Tums?
Is BGH safe? “Posilac is banned in Canada and Europe because of its links to cancers of the colon, breast and prostate, and the bacterial and antibiotic residues left in milk.” [546] In addition to the possible cancer risk, . . . IGF-1 may play a role in the early stages of diabetic nephropathy”[547] [kidney damage caused by diabetes,“characterized by high protein levels in the urine”[548]], according to the article, “Role of growth factors in the development of diabetic complications,” by F.Chiarelli, F. Santilli, and A. Mohn in Hormone Research.
“[T]here is a wealth of scientific information on the toxic veterinary effects of rBGH, major differences between rBGH and natural milk, and cancer risks posed by rBGH milk.”[549]
“Dr. Richard Burroughs was a staff veterinarian and senior scientist at the FDA overseeing the analysis of industry-sponsored tests on BGH. He raised a number of questions about the safety of BGH and about the approval process his agency was using. Dr. Burroughs reported [among other problems] that:
Ultimately, Dr. Burroughs was fired. ‘I was told that I was slowing down the approval process. It used to be that we had a review process at the FDA. Now we have an approval process. I don't think the FDA is doing good, honest reviews. They've become an extension of the drug industry.’"[550]
“The firing of Dr. Burroughs sent a powerful message to others working within the FDA who might have raised similar concerns. Criticism of BGH has not abated since approval of the drug.”[551]
“The very agency that should be protecting the nation's food supply [the FDA] has actively worked with drug companies to suppress information about BGH that would put the hormone in a negative light. The FDA violated its own internal policies in helping the pharmaceutical industry reap the profits of genetic engineering.”[552]
“[T]he drug [rBGH] is accompanied by a warning label that highlights 20 [sic] 21 possible complications and side effects. Some of these side effects include increased levels of pus in milk, and lesions and growths on the thyroid glands of animals.” [553] Nevertheless, Monsanto’s rBGH went on sale commercially on February 3, 1994.
The following year, Mark Kastel of the Wisconsin Farmers Union released a study of Wisconsin farmers' experiences with the drug. His findings exceeded the 21 potential health problems that Monsanto was required to list on the warning label for its Posilac brand of rBGH. Kastel found widespread reports of spontaneous deaths among rBGH-treated cows, high incidences of udder infections, severe metabolic difficulties and calving problems, and in some cases an inability to successfully wean treated cows off the drug [emphasis added]. Many experienced dairy farmers who experimented with rBGH suddenly needed to replace large portions of their herd. Instead of addressing the causes of farmers' complaints about rBGH, Monsanto went on the offensive, threatening to sue small dairy companies that advertised their products as free of the artificial hormone, and participating in a lawsuit by several dairy industry trade associations against the first and only mandatory labeling law for rBGH in the United States. Still, evidence for the damaging effects of rBGH on the health of both cows and people continued to mount.”[554]
“HFA [Humane Farming Association] has warned for years that the use of synthetic BGH would harm cows. This, of course, was vehemently denied by BGH manufacturers. Now, HFA has been proven correct.”[555]
“Below are excerpts from the official government warning that by law must accompany Monsanto's BGH: ‘Use of [BGH] is associated with increased frequency of use of medication in cows... Use of [BGH] in cows in which injection site swellings repeatedly open and drain should be discontinued. The number of cows affected with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase...Use of [BGH] has been associated with increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus...Cows may have...increased twinning rates. Also, the incidence of retained placenta may be higher . . . Cows injected with [BGH] had increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (e.g. lacerations, enlargements, calluses) of the knee (carpal region), and . . .disorders of the foot region.’"[556]
“The government’s product warning for BGH has proven valid. In the first 4 years after its introduction, the FDA received nearly 2,000 reports from dairy farmers of adverse experiences with Posilac. (Each report may represent multiple problems and multiple animals affected.) The clinical manifestations cited in the reports include . . . digestive disorders, . . . leg problems, cardiovascular disorders, and death.”[557]
John Robbins was heir to the Baskin-Robbins ice cream fortune, a lifestyle he renounced in order to live a healthier life than dairy could provide. In his book, The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Heal the World, (Foreword by Dean Ornish, M.D.), Robbins recounts the following facts about Monsanto’s desperate efforts to get BGH approved in Canada:
“During Canada's scientific review of Monsanto's application for approval of rBGH,” Robbins writes, “Canadian health officials said Monsanto tried to bribe them, and government scientists testified that they were being pressured by higher-ups to approve rBGH against their better scientific judgment.[558]
Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D., Director of The Moss Reports writes, “Samuel Epstein's book The Politics of Cancer blew the lid off the ‘cancer establishment.’”[559] The “Politics of Cancer Revisited is a blockbuster. It exposes the rampant industrial pollution that causes many preventable cases of cancer. It also shows the frightening power of industry in keeping us from winning the war against cancer. We all owe Professor Epstein a debt of gratitude for almost single-handedly keeping this issue alive and before the public for all these years.”[560]
Professor Samuel Epstein, M.D., includes a financial detail on the BGH scandal in his book, The Politics of Cancer Revisited (Introduction by Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Foreword by Congressman David Obey), in which he observes, “Also on camera, Canadian government officials described what they called an attempt at bribery by Monsanto, which offered $1 to $2 million to gain rBGH approval in Canada.”[561]
The Canadian government stood strong against approval of BGH. “To this day rBST remains banned in Canada, Japan, the EU, Australia, New Zealand and all but 19, mostly nonindustrialized, countries.”[562] BGH has had a different history in America.
On November 5, “1993, [the FDA] approved commercial sale [and use] of milk from rBGH-injected cows. At the same time the FDA prohibited the special labeling of the milk so as to make it impossible for the consumer to decide whether or not to purchase it.”[563]
“One of the main concerns is the high levels of IGF-1 found in milk from treated cows; estimates vary from twice as high to 10 times higher than in normal cow's milk. There is also concern that the IGF-1 found in treated milk is much more potent than that found in regular milk because it seems to be bound less firmly to its accompanying proteins.”[564]
“The concerns were vigorously attacked by consultants paid by Monsanto, the major manufacturer of rBGH.” They “claimed that IGF-1 would be completely broken down by digestive enzymes and therefore would have no biological activity in humans. Other researchers disagree with this claim and have warned that IGF-1 may not be totally digested and that some of it could indeed make its way into the colon and cross the intestinal wall into the bloodstream. This is of special concern in the case of very young infants and people who lack digestive enzymes or suffer from protein-related allergies.[565]
“Researchers at the FDA reported . . . that IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization and that pasteurization actually increases its concentration in BST-milk.”[566]
Whether IGF-1 in milk is digested and broken down into its constituent amino acids or whether it enters the intestine intact is a crucial factor. [R]esearch has shown that a very similar hormone, Epidermal Growth Factor, is protected against digestion when ingested in the presence of casein, a main component of milk. Thus there is a distinct possibility that IGF-1 in milk could also avoid digestion and make its way into the intestine where it could promote colon cancer. It is also conceivable that it could cross the intestinal wall in sufficient amounts to increase the blood level of IGF-1 significantly and thereby increase the risk of breast and prostate cancers. [567]
The extensive research of Samuel Epstein, M.D., author of What’s in Your Milk? (2006), on the dangers of rBGH as a threat to human health, states that traces of rBGH, “are absorbed through the gut . . . supercharged with high levels of . . . IGF-1, which is [also] readily absorbed through the gut,”[568] where “excess levels of IGF-I have been incriminated as a cause of . . . colon cancer”[569] because “IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.”[570] And not only does IGF-1 cause colon cancer from its stronghold in the gut, Dr. Epstein warns that IGF-1 can also cause breast and prostate cancers as well. ”What’s In Your Milk’s critical message to consumers is BOYCOTT rBGH HORMONAL MILK.”[571]
“Despite assurances from the FDA and industry-paid consultants there are now just too many serious questions surrounding the use of milk from cows treated with synthetic growth hormone to allow its continued sale.” [572]
“The use and marketing of the genetically engineered milk-boosting hormone, Bovine Somatotrophin (BST) in dairy cattle has been banned in the EU since 1st January 2000.”[573] “The European Union has maintained its moratorium on the use of rBGH and milk products from BST-treated cows are not sold in countries within the Union. Canada has also so far resisted pressure from the United States and the biotechnology lobby to approve the use of rBGH commercially.”[574]
“In light of the serious concerns about the safety of human consumption of milk from BST-treated cows consumers must maintain their vigilance to ensure that . . . the FDA in the United States moves immediately to ban rBGH-milk or at least allow its labelling so that consumers can protect themselves against the very real cancer risks posed by IGF-1.”[575]
Monsanto’s “RoundupÒ” (weedkiller) is an endocrine disruptor, which means when you use it, you are spraying your cow feed with poison. We encountered endocrine disruptors in the Fish section, but let us refresh the definition. “Endocrine disruptors are man-made synthetic chemicals and natural phytoestrogens (naturally occurring plant- or fungal metabolite-derived estrogen) that act on the endocrine systems of humans and animals by mimicking, blocking and/or interfering in some manner with the natural instructions of hormones to cells.”[576]
“The active ingredient in RoundupÒ, glyphosate, is linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma—-a cancer—-and the inhibition of steroidogenesis—-the obstruction of steroid creation in the body. This means that it is a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor,[577] according to the research of Paul Goettlich, “one of the foremost experts on plastics [endocrine disruptors].”[578]
“Pr. Gilles-Eric SERALINI's group in the University of Caen (Normandy, France) published original results concerning the toxicity of Roundup. It is one of the most used herbicides worldwide and the most used with genetically modified plants (GMOs).”[579] “The majority of GMOs commercialized in the world are designed for food and feed. These plants have been modified to remain alive after herbicide absorption, this herbicide being spread on the cultures.”[580] “This greatly facilitates its use, as well as the presence of its residues in the food chain. It is also evoked as a common pollutant in rivers.”[581]
“It is shown in this work that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup, to concentrations lower than the agricultural use. This could explain miscarriages and premature births in the United States in farmers. Moreover, below toxic levels, the effects of Roundup are measured on the synthesis of sexual hormones; this allows us to classify this herbicide as a potential endocrine disruptor. Finally, the effects of Roundup are always greater than those of glyphosate, which is known as its active compound.”[582]
Source: Sophie Richard, Safa Moslemi, Herbert Sipahutar, Nora Benachour, Gilles-Eric Seralini, Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives;
doi:10.1289/ehp.7728; http://dx.doi.org/; published online February 24, 2005
In other words, “Roundup's surfactant—-reduces surface tension, allowing the pesticide to flow better over the crop—-is more toxic than its active ingredient, glyphosate. In combination with glyphosate, a synergy is created that makes Roundup many times more toxic [than glyphosate alone]. For the same reason that the surfactant promotes a reduction in surface tension, it may also aid the penetration into the body.”[583]
“[T]he lethal ingredient in Roundup was not the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather the surfactant, or detergent, that allows the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants. In Roundup, that surfactant is a chemical called polyethoxylated tallowamine. Other herbicides have less dangerous surfactants.”[584] Not all Sunday gardeners use RoundupÒ (some do[585]), but many of us are liable to be drinking its residues in non-organic milk and dairy products.
Roundup is a glyphosate-based herbicide used worldwide including on most genetically modified plants in which it can be tolerated. Its residues may thus enter the food chain and glyphosate is found as a contaminant in rivers. Some agricultural workers using glyphosate have pregnancy problems, but its mechanism of action in mammals is questioned. Here we show that glyphosate is toxic on human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than the agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time, or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient. We tested its effect on aromatase with lower non-toxic concentrations, the enzyme responsible for estrogen synthesis. The herbicide acts as an endocrine disruptor on aromatase activity and mRNA levels, and glyphosate interacts within the active site of the purified enzyme, but its effect is facilitated by Roundup formulation in microsomes or in cell culture. We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup and not only glyphosate can be observed in mammals. We suggest that the presence of Roundup adjuvants enhances glyphosate bioavailability and/or bioaccumulation.[586]
Source: Sophie Richard, Safa Moslemi, Herbert Sipahutar, Nora Benachour, Gilles-Eric Seralini, Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives: doi:10.1289/ehp.7728 (available at http://dx.doi.org/), online 24 February 2005
Hervé Morin, writing in Le Monde, discusses the investigation of Roundup:
The most used herbicide in the world: Monsanto's Roundup and its competitors, formulated, like Roundup, on a base of glyphosate, have long enjoyed a reputation for harmlessness to human health and the environment. However, several recent studies seem to indicate that this active ingredient, used by farmers as well as by public road services and Sunday gardeners, could well not be as inoffensive as its promoters claim. The stakes are big, because the usage of glyphosate grows along with that of genetically modified organisms, the great majority of which have been specifically conceived to "tolerate" this active ingredient, fatal to plants.
In fact, while Roundup and similar products were originally used against weeds, ‘they have become a food product, since they are used on GMOs, which can absorb them without dying,’ maintains the biochemist Gilles-Eric Seralini. A member for years of the French Commission on Biomolecular Genetics (CBG), responsible for preparing the files for requests for field studies, then GMO commercialization, he ceaselessly demands more intense studies on their eventual health impact.
Also a member of Criigen, an association which has made control of GMOs its passion, he has oriented his own research toward the study of the impact of glyphosate. In an article published February 24 [2005] in the American journal Environmental Health Perspective[s], the biochemist and his team from the University of Caen demonstrate, in vitro, several toxic effects of this compound as well as of the additives associated with it to facilitate its diffusion.
For their study, the researchers used human placental cell lines, in which very weak doses of glyphosate showed toxic effects and, at still weaker concentrations, endocrinal disturbances. This, for Gilles-Eric Seralini, could explain the high levels of premature births and miscarriages observed in certain epidemiological studies--which are, however, controversial--covering women farmers using glyphosate. ‘The effect we have observed is proportional to the dose, but also to the length of exposure,’ he emphasizes.
His team has also compared the comparative effects of glyphosate and Roundup. And it has observed that the commercial product is more disruptive than its isolated main active ingredient. ‘Consequently the evaluation of herbicides must take into account the combination with additives in the product,’ he says.
. . . ‘Farmers dilute the pure product and are punctually exposed to doses 10,000 times stronger,’ he insists. ‘Our results show that the length of exposure must be taken into account.’
Sea-Urchin Models
He is joined in his conclusions by Robert Belle, from the National Center for Social Research (CNRS) biological station in Roscoff (Finistere), whose team has been studying the impact of glyphosate formulations on sea-urchin cells for several years. This recognized model for the study of early stages of cancer genesis earned Tim Hunt the 2001 Nobel Prize in medicine. In 2002, the Finisterian team had shown that Roundup acted on one of the key stages of cellular division.
‘This deregulation can lead to cancer,’ warns Robert Belle, who, to make himself understood, insists on summarizing the mechanisms of cancer genesis: during the division of a cell into two daughter cells, the two copies of genetic inheritance, in the form of DNA, may give rise to very numerous errors, up to 50,000 per cell. That's why repair mechanisms or natural cell death (apoptosis) are automatically set in motion. However, it happens that a cell escapes these alternatives (death or repair) and can perpetuate itself in an unstable form, potentially cancerous over the long term.[587]
(Translated from the French.)
Breast cancer and pesticides in dairy. There is “an increased concentration of pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic disease.”[588]
rBGH cows are fed genetically-modified feed, raising health questions. This farming could also lead to contam-ination of organic and conventional crops. rBGH cows are fed genetically-modified RoundupReady (RR) Alfalfa and grains saturated with toxic Roundup Herbicide, instead of grass. Cows are meant to feed upon fresh grass, not grain, or Monsanto’s GM Roundup-ready alfalfa, heavily sprayed with Roundup, Monsanto’s toxic weedkiller. Feeding cows grain instead of grass “will change the composition of the fats [in the milk], especially the CLA content.”[589]
In his article of June 27, 2007, “Brave new hay: Monsanto erases the line between what is natural and what isn’t,” Matt Jenkins writes:
“Roundup is a potent plant killer, but the alfalfa in [Farmer] Rasgorshek’s field has been genetically engineered to be immune to the herbicide. That feat of agricultural alchemy [as formerly noted] allows farmers to spray their fields without damaging the crop itself. ‘It’s just amazing that you can spray something over the top of the alfalfa, and it doesn’t kill it,’ Rasgorshek says.”[590]
“Behind this revolution in farming is Monsanto, the storied St. Louis-based chemical company. Monsanto not only manufactures Roundup but has also genetically engineered a Roundup-resistant gene into the alfalfa that Rasgorshek began growing three years ago. Today “Roundup Ready” alfalfa is planted on some 220,000 acres nationwide,. . . Yet Rasgorshek is growing what is at least temporarily an illegal substance. On May 3 [2007], a federal district judge banned the sale or planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa until the U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a full environmental-impact statement on the crop. It is the first time such a rigorous review has ever been required of a genetically modified crop, and the ruling could have significant implications for all such crops, which now cover the vast majority of the nation’s farmland.”[591]
“Alfalfa—-the favored fare of dairy cows [when they can’t get fresh grass]. . . -—is an unlikely flashpoint for the controversy over genetically modified crops, yet the legal fight over Roundup Ready alfalfa attests to just how far Monsanto’s massive foray into crop genetics has reached—-and it is just one piece of a pair of larger, interrelated controversies in which the company is now entangled.”[592]
“One centers on the environmental impact of genetically modified crops. Evidence is mounting that such crops, which were introduced after undergoing only cursory review, have led to the appearance of “superweeds” that have themselves mutated to survive Roundup herbicide and threaten to impose new costs on farmers and the environment-—and, although the long-term human health implications of those transformed crops are still not understood, there are reports that Monsanto’s proprietary genes have contaminated traditional and organic crops, transforming the very nature of the food we eat.”[593]
“But Monsanto is also embroiled in a second controversy. The company has intervened not only in the genetic architecture of the nation’s food and feed crops but in the very business of American farming itself. Monsanto now faces mounting legal challenges from its seed-growing competitors. It appears that the saga of Roundup Ready crops is ultimately less about genetic manipulation than about corporate power. Through a comprehensive scheme of takeovers, acquisitions, and alleged strong-arming of competition, Monsanto is building an empire. Along the way, it seems to be erasing the line between what is genetically engineered and what is not.”[594]
“The active ingredient in Roundup is a chemical called [as we have noted] glyphosate. First introduced in 1976, the herbicide is, unlike earlier generations of pesticides, relatively safe because it targets a metabolic pathway found in plants but not animals. [The glyphosate alone is being called safe; the surfactant in RoundupÒ with glyphosate makes the herbicide toxic.] Monsanto’s patent for the chemical gave it de facto monopoly control over the glyphosate market, and in 2000 half of Monsanto’s $5.5 billion in sales came from Roundup. But the patent was about to expire, opening the door for other companies to start manufacturing and selling glyphosate themselves.”[595]
“This Feb. 13,[2008] U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer reversed the USDA’s decision to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa for commercial planting. Because of “the possibility that the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa will degrade the human environment by eliminating a farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered alfalfa and a consumer’s choice to consume such food,” Breyer ruled that the Department of Agriculture must complete a full environmental-impact study before it can revisit the question of whether to deregulate the crop. Never before has such a thorough evaluation been required of a genetically modified crop.”[596]
“Breyer also put a temporary injunction on the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed, leaving pallets of the purple-dyed seed sitting on dealers’ loading docks with stop-sale notices stuck to them. It could take two years for the USDA to complete the environmental-impact statement. What will happen in the meantime?”[597]
“Late in April, the parties to the case again convened before Judge Breyer in San Francisco. Monsanto had made it clear that much was at stake if Breyer kept the injunction on planting Roundup Ready alfalfa in place while the government completed its environmental-impact statement. The company had anticipated the amount of acreage planted in Roundup Ready alfalfa to grow from 220,000 acres to 570,000 this year, then to 1.1 million acres next year.”[598]
“After Breyer’s initial ruling, Monsanto and Forage Genetics had seized on the idea of ‘coexistence’ of genetically modified, conventional, and organic crops. The two companies sent a letter to alfalfa growers asking them to write testimonials about ‘the benefits of having Roundup Ready alfalfa as a choice for farmers’ and enclosed a response form with space for farmers to describe ‘HOW I COEXIST.’ In the hearing before Breyer, the companies’ attorneys argued that if he allowed the USDA to impose a set of six conditions on growers — including mandatory isolation distances to minimize pollen flow, requirements that alfalfa be harvested before more than a small percentage of it blooms, and orders that any harvesting equipment that comes into contact with Roundup Ready alfalfa be cleaned to keep the seed from conventional fields — farmers could continue planting Roundup Ready alfalfa without contaminating their conventional and organic neighbors.”[599]
“But from his vantage point behind the bench, Breyer was plainly dubious about the plea to allow farmers to plant more Roundup Ready alfalfa while the case continued.
. . . On May 3, [2008] Breyer ruled that the injunction on the sale and planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa will remain in place until the USDA completes its environmental-impact statement.”[600]
“Monsanto is considering whether to appeal the ruling. Still, it is clear that the real world of farming is considerably messier than one that the company’s attorneys described in Breyer’s courtroom. The 3,000-odd farmers who, like Paul Rasgorshek, have already planted Roundup Ready alfalfa can continue growing the crop. But if the forthcoming environmental-impact statement does not justify the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa, putting the genie back in the bottle will be considerably harder than, say, recalling a defective automobile.”[601]
“[A] spokesman for Monsanto, told Farm Industry News: ‘We’re going to do everything we think is appropriate to defend growers’ right to choose this technology. Our goal is to restore that choice for farmers.’ It was a curious position to take, given that Monsanto has spent the last decade all but forcing farmers to buy bundled packages of its seeds and herbicides while, opponents claim, systematically eliminating its competitors. In fact, the company now faces at least 20 antitrust lawsuits over its actions.”[602]
“[T]he publicly available portions of the lawsuits pending against the company paint the outline of a top-to-bottom strategy to control the seed and herbicide business. The most recent lawsuit, filed by the American Corn Growers Association against Monsanto in February, lays out the basic details.”[603]
“[F]armers themselves have not escaped Monsanto’s near-total embrace: When they buy Roundup Ready seeds, the Corn Growers lawsuit states, Monsanto “requires [them] to sign a technology license . . . that effectively mandates that they use only Roundup herbicides” — and not competing brands or generics — on Roundup Ready crops.”[604]
“It is not hard to imagine the distinctions between conventional and organic, between conventional and genetically engineered — and ultimately between genetically engineered and organic — dissolving, regardless of whether anyone wants such an outcome.”[605] Monsanto might.
John Peck, executive director of Family Farm Defenders, a national grassroots organization based in Madison, WI, adds, “Also largely unknown is the impact on animal health when GMOs constitute such a high percentage of the diet. For instance, RR alfalfa would likely be added to a total mixed ration (TMR) for livestock that may already contain Bt corn [Bt = genetically altered], RR canola cake/meal, RR soy, and/or Bt cottonseed cake/meal. What impact the addition of RR alfalfa will have on the intestinal flora and fauna in ruminants, their nutritional uptake and susceptibility to pathogens is poorly understood and deserves further study.”[606] It follows that pathogens affecting dairy cows may affect their milk, and our health.
Toxic RoundupÒ leads to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). “One of the herbicides [herbicides are pesticides] linked to NHL [non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma] by the most recent Hardell study is glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. A previous study of human subjects in 1998 had implicated Roundup in hairy cell leukemia {cancer of the blood-forming organs), a rare kind of NHL. Several animal studies have shown that Roundup can cause gene mutations and chromosomal aberrations.”[607]
“The use of Roundup is expected to increase substantially in the next few years because several of Monsanto's genetically engineered crops (such as potatoes and corn) are "Roundup Ready" which means they have been specifically designed to withstand a thorough dousing by Roundup. The goal is to create crops that are not affected by Roundup so that unusually large quantities of Roundup can be applied to eradicate weeds without harming the crop. Roundup is Monsanto's most profitable product.[608]
“Yet risk assessors working for the poisoners, and their apologists in government, make a good living manipulating mathematical models to ‘prove’ that all of this is acceptably safe.”[609]
“It boils down to this: we must get private money out of our elections so that we can choose political representatives who are not in the pockets of the poisoners. Until that happens, the poisoning will continue.
--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)”[610]
Advertising teaches us that dairy (milk, cheese, and yogurt) is a magic bullet for “osteoporosis, hypertension, obesity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke, some cancers (i.e., colon, breast), and dental caries.”[611] Sound the “Snake Oil” alarm. No, wait. Snake oil didn’t work, but it was usually inert; it did no harm. Dairy may not work, but it can kill you.
Milk contains contaminants including pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and drugs that can cause cancer. The milk we drink is a poisonous cocktail. “Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow’s body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.”[612] This means the milk is genetically engineered.
“Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition [in which millions of pus cells may be secreted into the milk] requires the use of antibiotics,”[613] which are not always successful, which means pus cells are accepted as contaminants. “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows 750 million pus cells in each liter of milk. [Higher pus cell thresholds have been reported as well.] Since it takes 10 pounds of milk to make one pound of
cheese, a pound of cheese can contain up to 7.5 billion pus
cells. If your cheese is sliced so that there are 16 slices
to a pound, that single slice of American or Swiss can
contain over 468 million pus cells.”[614]
“Antibiotics, mostly common penicillin, are given to cows for treatment of mastitis. Cows are not supposed to be milked for 48 hours after receiving penicillin. When this precaution is not followed the penicillin appears in the milk.”[615] “Fifteen million pounds of antibiotics are used in animal production every year which end up in dairy products and meat.”[616] “Consumers Union and the Wall Street Journal tested milk samples in the New York metropolitan area and found the presence of 52 different antibiotics. Eat ice cream, yogurt, and cheese toppings, and you're also consuming antibiotics.”[617]
“[T]he FDA allows drug-contaminated milk to be sold as long as the residues are at a “safe” level. These so-called “safe” levels have been shown to cause increases in drug resistant strains of virulent diseases.”[618]
“This alarms medical experts, such as Dr. Stuart Levy of Tufts University. Dr. Levy warns of the growing human health crisis posed by ‘antibiotic resistance.’ As disease organisms are exposed to the antibiotics used on dairy cows and other farm animals, they become increasingly resistant to drug treatment. Although exact numbers are not known, over ten thousand people probably die in the U.S. each year due to antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. And the number of deaths is rising annually.”[619]
“The FDA has been notoriously lax in dealing with the misuse of antibiotics and other drugs in the dairy industry. It is estimated that there are more than 80 different drugs currently used by milk producers. Several of these drugs are passed on to people through milk.”[620]
“Many people have had debilitating allergic reactions to these antibiotics. In addition, one of the drugs routinely found in milk is sulfamethazine. Promoted by the drug industry as ‘safe and effective,’ sulfamethazine is now known to be carcinogenic.”[621]
“Pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer.[622]
“Every sip of [cows’] milk [and fatty dairy products, such as cheeses and ice cream] has 59 different powerful hormones,” such as estrogen, and prolactin (which, in high amounts, may cause impotence). “In her lifetime a woman will produce the total equivalent of one tablespoon of estrogen. Hormones work on a nanomolecular level, which means that it takes a billionth of a gram to produce a powerful biological effect. The average American now consumes over thirty pounds of cheese each year. That product contains concentrated hormones. One pound of cheese can contain ten times the amount of hormones as one pound of milk. Got Romano? Got raging hormones!”[623]
Advertising dairy for weight loss is false advertising; dairy can cause weight gain, and disease. The dairy industry seeks to capitalize on the biochemical fact of food addiction. “[C]heese producers talk about their USDA-sponsored marketing program “triggering the cheese craving.”[624] They go far afield and into subterfuge when they link dairy to weight loss.
“For example, a . . ."Got Milk?" ad featuring singer Sheryl Crow reads: ‘Studies suggest that the nutrients in milk can play an important role in weight loss. So if you're trying to lose weight or maintain a healthy weight, try drinking 24 ounces of low-fat or fat-free milk every 24 hours as part of your reduced-calorie diet.’ But studies on dairy's role in weight loss have shown mixed results. And . . . an epidemiological study . . . says dairy consumption doesn't have an effect on long-term weight loss for men.
Scientists analyzed the data on weight change in about 20,000 men over a 12-year period. The men are participants in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, an ongoing survey of data on men's health conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health.”[625]
“The men reported how much they weighed and what they had been eating. Almost half of them were overweight or obese. They followed their usual diets and were divided into categories based on their dairy intake. Overall, men who increased their intake of low-fat dairy foods the most over 12 years did not lose more weight than those who decreased their intake of those foods the most, according to the findings in the March [2006] issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. ‘The hypothesis that has been floating around is that increasing dairy can promote weight loss, and in this study, I did not find that,’ says Swapnil Rajpathak, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.”[626]
“Much of the research supporting dairy's role in weight loss was done by Michael Zemel, director of the Nutrition Institute at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, . . .whose studies were financed by the dairy industry and General Mills, which makes Yoplait products.”[627]
“He has patented the claim that calcium or dairy products can prevent or treat obesity. The university owns the patent and has licensed it to Dairy Management Inc.
Zemel is continuing to study the potential fat-burning effects of dairy foods because he believes ‘calcium alone helps you burn more fat, but dairy has multiple other compounds that work with the calcium to amplify the effect.’"[628]
“Still, other researchers are skeptical of the dairy claims. Another study of 54 overweight people, conducted by Jean Harvey-Berino, chairman of the department of nutrition and food sciences at the University of Vermont, found that consuming dairy didn't boost weight loss for heavy people who cut calories. Dieters consumed 1,200 to 2,100 calories a day, depending on their weight. After six months, the dieters had lost an average of 20 to 22 pounds. There was no significant difference between the high-dairy and low-dairy groups, says Harvey-Berino, whose study also was financed by the dairy industry.”[629]
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) “filed two major lawsuits to stop a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign claiming that milk facilitates weight loss. PCRM charges that three main dairy industry trade groups—the International Dairy Foods Association, National Dairy Council, and Dairy Management, Inc.—and international food giants Kraft Foods, General Mills, and Dannon—are misleading consumers with deceptive advertising that makes scientifically unsubstantiated claims about the effect of dairy products on weight-loss. McNeill Nutritionals, LLC, the maker of Lactaid, and LifeWay Foods, the manufacturer of a yogurt-like beverage called kefir, are also named as defendants.”[630]
“PCRM filed the suits on behalf of Catherine Holmes, a Virginia resident, who relied on these false claims and actually gained weight while following recommendations contained in a series of dairy weight-loss ads. The suits—-one for money damages, the other a class-action suit seeking injunctive relief—-were filed in Alexandria Circuit Court in Virginia.” [631]
“To stem declining sales and boost their bottom line, the dairy industry is duping overweight Americans into believing that milk and other dairy are the magic bullet to weight control,’ says Dan Kinburn, PCRM senior legal counsel. ‘We are serving notice with these lawsuits that we will not continue to let these false health claims go unchallenged.’”[632]
“The dairy industry’s weight-loss campaign is based solely on two small-scale studies using questionable methodology, led by [the aforementioned Professor of Nutrition] Michael Zemel, Ph.D. . . . Since 1998, Zemel has accepted nearly $1.7 million in research grants from the National Dairy Council (NDC), and $275,000 from General Mills. He has also patented his weight-loss program and licensed it to the International Dairy Foods Association. Advertisers pay Zemel for use of his so-called “calcium key” weight-loss program—-fees that currently run in excess of $50,000 a year.”[633]
“’The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence confirms that dairy products either cause weight gain or, at best, have no effect on weight whatsoever,’ said Amy Lanou, Ph.D., PCRM senior nutrition scientist. ‘Since 1989 there have been 35 clinical trials that have explored the relationship between dairy products and/or calcium supplements and body weight. Thirty-one found no relation; two indicated that milk and other dairy products actually contributed to weight gain. Only the two studies led by Zemel have found that dairy contributes to both weight and fat loss when individuals are also restricting calories to lose weight,’ said Lanou.”[634]
“PCRM filed petitions with both the Food and Drug Administration and Federal Trade Commission . . . calling for a halt to the dairy weight-loss campaign. PCRM’s legal staff have uncovered documents from an April 2003 dairy marketing meeting in which industry representatives conclude that a weight-loss claim is likely to withstand scrutiny because of newly relaxed FDA standards.”[635]
The National Dairy Council’s website promotes “Healthy Weight Tips”[636] as follows: “Getting 3 servings of milk, cheese or yogurt is as easy as adding a slice of cheese to your breakfast toast or topping your blueberries with yogurt,” which follows the 2005 Dietary Guidelines, despite the fact that dairy can put on pounds. Dr. Barnard says, “Drinking more milk actually causes weight gain.”[637]
He adds, ”I also know that this $200 million ad campaign is simply the latest attempt by the dairy industry to bamboozle consumers into believing that milk, yogurt, and even high-fat cheese products have some magical properties that make them a ‘must have’ part of a healthy diet.” [638]
Headline revelations began in the early 90s[639] warning that America suffers from obesity from cradle to grave. This revived the dairy industry (beginning in 1994[640]) as cheer-leaders in a fun-filled, star-studded anti-obesity campaign. Rather than launch the usual leaden negative attack on weight-gain, Big Dairy would unite Americans of all ages by inviting us to join the milk mustaches club.
“Will drinking milk help you lose weight? Milk-mustache ads featuring celebrities such as. . .TV advice-meister Dr. Phil McGraw either promise or strongly suggest that it does.”[641]
Those “Got milk?” ads ran until recently on television, billboards, sides of skyscrapers, and in print. You couldn’t walk down a street without seeing ads on the sides of buses, on taxis, and then in the subway. A “must have” for many ad viewers was “membership” in that misguided club. The American public is as docile in receiving false dairy advertising as are the cows being exploited by it. We, too, comply.
Federal Trade Commission intervenes to halt false dairy weight loss advertising in May 2007. On May 11, 2007, the article, “Dairy Council to End Ad Campaign That Linked Drinking Milk With Weight Loss, by Kim Severson, appeared in The New York Times. The article begins, “A national advertising campaign that associates dairy products with weight loss will be curtailed because research does not support the claim, according to the Federal Trade Commission.[642]
“The group [PCRM] petitioned the F.T.C. in 2005 to argue that the advertisements were misleading. In a May 3 [2007] letter to the group, Lydia Parnes, director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said Agriculture Department representatives and milk producers and processors had agreed to change the advertisements and related marketing materials.’”[643]
PCRM will challenge dairy industry on “assertion that calcium helps prevent bone fractures in older women.” “Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the group that brought the [false dairy aids weight-loss advertising] matter to the F.T.C., said it would continue to press the dairy industry on other claims, which include the assertion that calcium helps prevent bone fractures in older women. ‘I think people will start to recognize that the dairy industry, which used to have a mom-and-pop image, is a huge commercial entity that will exaggerate to sell its products,’ Dr. Barnard said.”[644]
“Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, said the agreement to modify the advertisements was groundbreaking. In her book, What to Eat, she argued that lobbying by the $50 billion dairy industry could sometimes cloud policy on nutrition [e.g. the 2005 Dietary Guidelines milk upgrade]. . . . she [Nestle] said people could have a healthy diet without them [dairy products]. ’Those ads were ridiculously misleading,’ she said.”[645]
PCRM describes their successful challenge to the dairy industry as follows: “In a victory for consumers, two national dairy advertising campaigns overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture will stop claiming that dairy products cause weight loss because such claims are not supported by existing scientific research, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced. . . . The decision, which comes in response to an FTC petition filed by PCRM, will end misleading claims made in the ‘Milk Your Diet. Lose Weight’ and ‘3-A-Day. Burn More Fat, Lose Weight’ promotions.”[646]
“In the FTC petition, PCRM charged that the dairy industry has used false and misleading advertising in its multimillion-dollar, celebrity-filled marketing campaign suggesting that consuming milk and other dairy products causes weight loss. In response, the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices met with USDA staff and representatives of the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board and the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, who agreed to discontinue all advertising and other marketing activities involving weight-loss claims pending further research into the issue.” [647]
“Milk and cheese are more likely to pack on pounds than help people slim down,” said Dan Kinburn, PCRM’s general counsel. “This case calls into question other advertising claims made by the industry, especially the notion that milk builds strong bones. Evidence shows it does nothing of the kind.”[648]
Independent research, including a recent study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, has found that dairy product consumption either has little or no effect on weight loss or actually increases body weight. A recent study in the International Journal of Cancer found a disturbing link between dairy consumption and increased prostate cancer risk, something previously identified in two Harvard studies.”[649]
The dairy industry still insists that dairy aids in weight loss. On May 11, 2007, the National Dairy Council (NDC) and the International Dairy Food Association (IDFA}(“IDFA is the Washington, DC–based organization representing the nation's dairy processing and manufacturing industries and their suppliers. IDFA is composed of three constituent organizations: the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF), the National Cheese Institute (NCI) and the International Ice Cream Association (IICA). Its 500–plus members range from large multinational corporations to single–plant operations, and represent more than 85% of the total volume of milk, cultured products, cheese, and ice cream and frozen desserts produced and marketed in the United States — an estimated $90–billion a year industry.”)[650] issued this statement:
“We stand behind our weight-loss messages and the science supporting those messages. . . .At the request of the USDA, we are shifting these elements in our campaigns to emphasize the role of dairy in weight maintenance.”[651]
“In the 1980s, researchers focused on the amount of fat people ate as a probable cause of cancer, but studies did not strongly support that.”[653] “Now attention has turned to obesity, and more and more research is providing evidence that indict that as a cancer cause.”[654] “Overall, Willett estimated 30 percent to 35 percent of cancers are due to nutritional factors, much of it to obesity.”[655] The idea of the dairy industry encouraging America to eat dairy foods for weight loss is particularly irresponsible in view of the pivotal role obesity plays in our health.
Obesity, high-caloric dairy foods, and cancer risk. It’s official. Americans are the fattest people on earth, according to the Census Bureau’s 2007 Statistical Abstract of the U.S.[656]
Low-fat dairy foods are not always low-calorie. Extra sugar is often added to reduced-fat dairy products to enhance flavor.
“About half of the adult population in developed countries is classified as overweight or obese, Larsson and Wolk said.”[657], [658] “Obesity, linked to heart disease, diabetes and dementia, was associated with the cancers by looking for a connection between weight and the disease [in] several studies.”[659]
“Researchers previously have found a connection between weight gain and colon and breast cancers. The new study shows weight may play a role in a dozen types of tumors, among them cancers of the kidney, esophagus, thyroid, uterus and gall bladder. The report doesn't claim that obesity is a cause of the diseases, only that those who are overweight have a higher risk.”[660]
“Excessive weight was also linked to increases in rectal cancer and malignant melanoma in men and postmenopausal breast, pancreatic, thyroid and colon cancers in women.”[661] Renehan et al states, “We noted weaker positive associations . . . between increased BMI [body-mass index] and rectal cancer and malignant melanoma in men; postmenopausal breast, pancreatic, thyroid, and colon cancers in women; and leukaemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in both sexes. Associations were stronger in men than in women for colon cancer.”[662]. The risk for blood cancers [such as adult leukemia and multiple myeloma[663]] and [non-Hodgkin’s[664]] lymphoma were also increased for both sexes. ‘The number of deaths per year attributable to obesity is about 30,000 in the U.K. and ten times that in the U.S., where obesity has been estimated to have overtaken smoking in 2005 as the main preventable cause of illness and premature death,’ Larsson and Wolk said.”[665]
Source: S.C.Larsson, A. Wolk, "Excess body fatness: an important cause of most cancers" Lancet 371: 536-537, 2008.
“Obesity can double the risk of several cancers.”[666] “The analysis of 144 published studies incorporating some 282,000 men and women . . . showed . . .the relationship between obesity and some cancers, the researchers reported in the Lancet medical journal. Obesity is a major issue worldwide and also raises the risk of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and heart problems. The World Health Organisation classifies around 400 million people as obese.”[667]
A.G.“Renehan and his colleagues looked at what happened to people whose body mass index (BMI) increased from the normal range to overweight or from overweight to obese. BMI is a calculation of height to weight, and the normal range is usually considered to be 18 to 25, with more than 25 overweight and above 30 obese.”[668]
"We suspect there are differences in changes in hormones due to the amount of fat cells in our body, and whether a person is a man or a woman," Renehan said.[669]
“Being obese or even overweight may increase a person's risk of developing up to a dozen different types of cancer.” “Doctors have long suspected a link between weight gain and certain cancers, including colon and breast cancers. But the new study, published . . . in the journal Lancet, suggests it could also increase chances for cancer of the esophagus, thyroid, kidney, uterus and gall bladder, among others.”[670]
“While the study suggests a link, there is no definitive proof that being fat in itself causes cancer.”[671] “The subjects, both overweight and normal weight, were followed for about nine to 15 years, with researchers tracking their body mass index, or BMI--a calculation based on weight and height--and correlating it with incidents of cancer.[672]
“In men, an average weight gain of 33 pounds increased the risk of esophageal cancer by 52 percent, thyroid cancer by 33 percent, and colon and kidney cancers each by 24 percent, the research found. “In women, a weight gain of 29 pounds increased the risk of cancer in the uterus and gall bladder by nearly 60 percent, esophagus by 51 percent and kidney by 34 percent, the study said.”[673]
“’One of the hypotheses is that the presence of excess fat cells could affect the levels of hormones in your body,’ Renehan said. ‘At a cellular level, that may favor the development of tumors in humans.’” [674]
“Substances stored in body fat may promote tumor growth. The stored substances include hormones and growth factors,”[675] (such as IGF-1, found in increased amounts in BGH-enhanced milk , i.e. Monsanto’s PosilacÒ).
“Because many studies have found that fatter people are more likely to get cancer, experts often recommend losing weight to reduce cancer risk. ‘The simple message is that, if you manage to keep a healthy body weight, you will have a lower risk of developing cancer,’ said Ed Yong, of Cancer Research United Kingdom.”[676]
“Dr. Andrew Renehan, the study's lead author” is “senior lecturer at the School of Cancer Studies at the University of Manchester.”[677]
Source: A.G. Renehan, et al "Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies" Lancet 371:569-578, 2008.
“Doctors and dieticians have long known that high-fat foods like dairy products contribute to obesity for a variety of reasons. First, fat is calorically dense. Gram for gram, fat has more than twice the calories of carbohydrates. That bowl of ice cream has far more calories than an equal amount of grains, beans, fruits, or vegetables. Second, our bodies store fat more readily than carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are fuel and are burned up easily. Fat, on the other hand, turns into fat and makes those who eat it fat. Also, fat doesn't fill us up as carbohydrates do, especially complex carbohydrates and fiber.”[678]
“Dairy products, which contain no fiber or complex carbohydrates at all, are about as high-fat as they come: a glass of milk is 49 percent fat; Swiss and cheddar cheeses are more than 65 percent fat; ice cream and yogurt are almost 50 percent fat; even "low-fat" milk and "nonfat" cottage cheese, which many consumers mistakenly believe to be fat-free, are more than 20 percent fat. The dairy industry tries to deceive us--labeling milk "2 percent," when, in fact, more than 30 percent of that milk's calories come from fat, or labeling cottage cheese "non fat," when one-fifth of its calories come from fat!”[679]
“When you put a "milk mustache" on your lips, you are likely to add extra inches to your hips. . . . In fact, 59 percent of American men and 49 percent of American women are overweight, putting them at risk for heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and early death. According to medical experts, 300,000 Americans die from [preventable] weight-related illnesses every year. ... According to researchers at Tufts University, obesity "is now of epidemic proportions in the United States" and "high-fat [animal flesh] diets ... are strongly linked" to skyrocketing obesity rates.[680] “[H]igh-fat diets increase estrogen production, apparently increasing cancer risk. Low-fat, high-fiber diets reduce estrogens to a more biologically normal level.”[681] This does not mean that you ought to have no healthful fats, such as olive oil, in your diet. That would be irresponsible.
“Dr. T. Colin Campbell of Cornell University has studied the Chinese diet, which is centered on rice and vegetables, with little meat and no dairy products. The apparent effect is not just a higher age of puberty, but also phenomenally low rates of heart disease, obesity, and cancer.”[682]
“High-fat diets may also encourage the absorption of
carcinogens into the body. Researchers have observed, for example, that when the carcinogens in cigarette smoke are absorbed through the lung tissue, they tend to travel along with fats in the blood. It may be that on a low-fat diet, the body is less able to absorb and transport carcinogens.”[683] “As everyone now knows, a low-fat, high-fiber, plant-based diet helps protect against colon cancer.”[684] Again, a low-fat diet is not a no-fat diet. Proper hormone production requires some fat.
IGF-1, plentiful in rBGH milk, and in tumor formation. Technically, all milk is BGH milk, but Posilac is rBGH milk. “[r]BGH-milk contains higher levels of a human growth promotant known as Insulin-like Growth Factor One, or IGF-1. This hormone, which is identical in cows and people, is a suspected carcinogen. Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. internationally renowned toxicologist, warns, "[A]ll women from conception to death will now be exposed to an additional breast cancer risk due to milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone."[685]
“Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and its main binding protein, IGFBP-3, modulate cell growth and survival, and are thought to be important in tumour development. Circulating concentrations of IGF-I might be associated with an increased risk of cancer, whereas IGFBP-3 concentrations could be associated with a decreased cancer risk.”[686]
Andrew G. Renehan, of the Department of Surgery, Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK, and Jan Frystyk and Allan Flyvbjerg, of the Medical Research Laboratories, Clinical Institute, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, wrote, “Obesity and cancer risk: the role of the insulin–IGF axis,” which appears in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 17, Issue 8, October 2006, pages 328-336 (available online September 7, 2006), which says (as a pioneering prelude to his research announced as of February 2008 on obesity and cancer):
“Accumulating epidemiological evidence shows that being either overweight or obese, in other words having excess body weight (EBW), is associated with an increased risk of several, common, adult cancers. The molecular mechanisms that underlie these associations are not understood fully, but insulin resistance is likely to be important. The insulin–cancer hypothesis postulates that chronic hyperinsulinemia is associated with decreased concentrations of insulin-like growth factor binding protein1 (IGFBP-1) and IGFBP-2, leading to increased availability of IGF-I and concomitant changes in the cellular environment that favor tumor formation [emphasis added].”[687]
We have already established that bovine IGF-1 and human IGF-1 are identical. “IGF-1, [is] a hormone associated with increased risk of cancer (Science, January 23, 1998.”)[688] Ingesting excess IGF-1 from milk is contraindicated.
The Organic Consumers Association released a warning on January 18, 2008 that reads, “rBGH is likely hazardous for human health, since milk from injected cows contains significantly higher levels--ranging from 18 percent to 106 percent--of a potent cancer tumor promoter called insulin-like growth factor or IGF-1. A number of studies have indicated that people with higher levels of IGF-1 in their bodies suffer from higher rates of colon, [prostate[689]] and breast cancer. In addition Monsanto's rBGH is also more immunogenic--stimulates the immune system more--than the non-genetically engineered BGH produced naturally by a cow's pituitary gland.”[690]
The status of IGF-1 as a cancer-promoter is confirmed by several sources, as we note, and the Lancet concurs: “IGF-1 is a powerful growth hormone . . . linked to cancers of the breast and prostate. A study published in The Lancet showed a 7-fold increased risk of breast cancer among pre-menopausal women with the highest levels of IGF-1 in their blood.”[691] “[A] study of prostate cancer published in Science magazine found a 4-fold increased risk among men with the most IGF-1.”[692]
On November 9, 2005, The New York Times reported on IGF-1, “the rBST [milk] byproduct that's associated with breast, prostate and colon cancer,” [693] --as a public health hazard.
Dairy equals discomfort for millions who are lactose intolerant. “[A]t about the age of four, most people around the world begin to lose the ability to digest lactose, the carbohydrate found in milk. This results in a condition known as lactose intolerance that causes a range of unpleasant abdominal symptoms, including stomach cramps, flatulence and diarrhea.”[694]
“Lactose intolerance is a reality for 75% of the world's population. In Canada, while many adult Caucasians have the ability to digest lactose, a large number of First Nations People, Asians, Africans and people of Jewish ancestry are lactose deficient.”[695]
“The case for dairy foods is weak. They are highly allergenic, and millions of us are lactose intolerant.”[696] “[M]ost 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.”[697]
“Lactose intolerance . . . may not be the only reason people benefit from the [non-dairy] diet change. Both the fat and the protein in dairy products can affect digestive function [adversely].”[698]
We laugh when Homer Simpson keeps buying the Quik-E-Mart’s old packaged expired hotdogs (even though they’re always moldy), because they’re on sale. When you deny the message you are receiving about dairy by using Lactaid, aren’t you insisting that you know better than nature? Now, Beano problems are different. If you keep eating those beans that are good for you, your digestive symptoms may soon go away without Beano. That doesn’t often happen with lactose.
Learn to read your symptoms. Allow them to communicate with you. Keep it simple. When something makes you sick, with the exception of legumes and fibrous vegetables, don’t eat or drink it again. Skip the dairy.
Lactose and milk linked to ovarian cancer. “Ovarian cancer is more common in Northern Europe than in Asian populations and the consumption of milk products may be the reason. Studies have found that there is a higher risk of ovarian cancer in women who consume lactose (sugar in milk). This was the conclusion of a study published in 2004, that tracked 80,326 participants in the Nurses' Health Study. A Swedish study of 61,084 women found that high intakes of lactose and dairy products, particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk of serous ovarian cancer but not other subtypes of ovarian cancer.[699]
S.C. Larsson et al. of the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology of The National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden published “Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the swedish Mammography Cohort” in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2004. They are pioneers.
BACKGROUND: High intakes of dairy products and of the milk sugar lactose have been hypothesized to increase ovarian cancer risk, but prospective data are scarce. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between intakes of dairy products and lactose and the risk of total epithelial ovarian cancer and its subtypes. DESIGN: This was a prospective population-based cohort study of 61 084 women aged 38-76 y who were enrolled in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Diet was assessed in 1987-1990 with the use of a self-administered food-frequency questionnaire. During an average follow-up of 13.5 y, 266 women were diagnosed with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer; 125 of those women had serous ovarian cancer. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, women who consumed >/=4 servings of total dairy products/d had a risk of serous ovarian cancer (rate ratio: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.7; P for trend = 0.06) twice that of women who consumed <2 servings/d. No significant association was found for other subtypes of ovarian cancer. Milk was the dairy product with the strongest positive association with serous ovarian cancer (rate ratio comparing consuming >/=2 glasses milk/d with consuming milk never or seldom: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.7; P for trend = 0.04). We observed a positive association between lactose intake and serous ovarian cancer risk (P for trend = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that high intakes of lactose and dairy products, particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk of serous ovarian cancer but not of other subtypes of ovarian cancer. Future studies should consider ovarian cancer subtypes separately.[700]
Source: S.C. Larsson, L. Bergkvist, A. Wolk, Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Am J Clin Nutr 80(5):1353-7, Nov 2004.
In 2005, the pioneers Larsson et al (building on a foundation laid by such researchers as Dr. Daniel Cramer of Harvard University) published “a new study reaffirming the association between milk consumption and ovarian cancer” in the August 2005 International Journal of Cancer. “[T]he new meta-analysis found that the strongest evidence of the milk-cancer association came from three prospective studies. Every 10 grams of lactose (the amount in one glass of milk) ingested on a daily basis increased ovarian cancer risk by 13 percent.”[701] (Tell that to the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.)
PCRM issued, “Milk Linked to Ovarian Cancer: U.S. Experts Issue Recommendation Based on New Swedish Study“ as a Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine News Release. “For more than ten years, researchers have reported on the association between milk consumption and ovarian cancer risk,” says Neal D. Barnard, M.D., nutrition researcher and president of PCRM. “There is now sufficient evidence to recommend that women avoid dairy products in order to avoid this potentially lethal cancer.”[702]
“In Harvard’s Nurses’ Health Study of over 80,000 In participants, researchers found that each daily glass of low-fat or skim milk was associated with a 20 percent increase in serous ovarian cancers (Int J Cancer 2004). Researchers hypothesize that galactose, a component of the milk sugar lactose, may damage ovarian cells, making them more susceptible to cancer. The Iowa Women’s Health Study of more than 29,000 postmenopausal women showed that the highest consumers of lactose (milk sugar) had a 60 percent increased risk of ovarian cancer as compared to those who consumed the least lactose (Am J Epidemiol 1999).”[703]
The PCRM initiative “The Cancer Project” published, “Consumption of Dairy Products Increases Ovarian Cancer Risk” in which they review the fact that the “meta-analysis of 21 studies that examined a relationship between dairy product consumption and ovarian cancer risk found that every 10 grams of lactose consumed (the amount in one glass of milk) on a daily basis increased ovarian cancer risk by 13 percent. The study found a stronger link in cohort studies than in case-control studies. (Cohort studies follow a group of people over time and are considered more reliable than case-control studies, which compare patients and healthy control subjects at a single point in time.) Skim, low-fat, and whole milk, yogurt, cheese, and total lactose (dairy sugar) consumption was analyzed in these studies. Previous studies have suggested that galactose, a byproduct of lactose digestion, may have a toxic effect on a woman’s ovaries.” [704]
The researchers find, “[T]he 3 cohort studies are consistent and show significant positive associations between intakes of total dairy foods, low-fat milk, and lactose and risk of ovarian cancer. . . . In conclusion, prospective cohort studies, but not case-control studies, support the hypothesis that high intakes of dairy foods and lactose may increase the risk of ovarian cancer.[705]
Source: Susanna C. Larsson, Nicola Orsini, Alicja Wolk , Milk, milk products and lactose intake and ovarian cancer risk: A meta-analysis of epidemiological studies;
Int J Cancer. Volume 118, Issue 2 , Pages 431 – 441, 2005
Meanwhile, in a twist of irony, the dairy industry was still sporting milk mustaches everywhere. In 2006, The Cancer Project publicized a new report from the Harvard School of Public Health, supporting the ground-breaking research of Drs. Larsson, et al. confirming the link between dairy and ovarian cancer.
“A new report from the Harvard School of Public Health,” The Cancer Project wrote, “shows a higher risk of ovarian cancer among women with increased intakes of lactose, the primary sugar in dairy milk. The pooled analysis included 12 prospective cohort studies with a total of 553,217 women, of whom 2,132 developed ovarian cancer. The analysis found a 19 percent increase in risk for those consuming greater than 30 grams of lactose per day, the equivalent of three or more servings of dairy milk.”[706]
“During the digestive process, lactose produces glucose and galactose. Galactose is thought to have toxic effects for the ovaries for some women, particularly those who do not readily metabolize and eliminate it.”[707]
Source: J.M. Genkinger, D.J. Hunter, D. Spiegelman , et al. Dairy products and ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 12 cohort studies. Cancer Epidemol Biomarkers Prev. 15:364-372, 2006.
“There was one thing that the women with cancer had eaten much more frequently than women without cancer: dairy products, especially the supposedly ‘healthy’ products, such as yogurt.”[708] “[W]hen dairy product consumption exceeds the enzymes' capacity to break down galactose, there is a build-up of galactose in the blood, which may damage a woman's ovaries. Some women have particularly low levels of these enzymes, and when they consume dairy products on a regular basis, their risk of ovarian cancer can be triple that of other women. The problem is the milk sugar, not the milk fat, so it is not solved by using non-fat products. In fact, yogurt and cottage cheese seem to be of most concern because the bacteria used in their production increase the production of galactose from lactose.”[709]
Dairy products: an obesity link that increases risk of not surviving ovarian cancer. “Ovarian cancer is fairly common. ’About one in 60 American women will develop ovarian cancer,’ said Dr. Andrew J. Li, a faculty physician at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Each year, about 20,000 new cases are diagnosed and about 15,000 women die of the disease, according to the American Cancer Society.”[710]
“It is well known that obesity is associated with various malignancies, including kidney, throat, breast and colon cancers. Findings about obesity and ovarian cancer have been somewhat less clear, the researchers say, but evidence from previous studies suggests that obesity predicts a worse outcome for ovarian cancer patients as well.”[711]
“Dr. Li said obesity did not increase the risk of developing ovarian cancer, but did affect the chance of survival when a person developed it. 'Reducing obesity and maintaining an ideal body weight,' he said, 'is important for many reasons. This is just one more health problem in which obesity plays a role.’”[712] Giving up dairy helps to protect you from being obese.
Sources of hidden dairy ingredients include chocolate.
A January 2008 research study, “Chocolate consumption and bone density in older women” by Jonathan M. Hodgson et al in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concludes, “Older women who consume chocolate daily had lower bone density and strength.”[713]
Milk and milk products (including milk chocolate) are addictive. “Opiates are narcotics, and they produce intense feelings of pleasure followed by a calm, drowsy feeling. Opiates are addictive. Milk contains opiates. Ergo, milk is addictive. The most wholesome cow's milk from organically raised bovines naturally contains a powerful opiate in the morphine family called casomorphin. Concentrated milk products (cheese, ice cream, and milk chocolate) contain increased quantities of these addictive narcotics.”[714]
“Let's examine milk chocolate, for example. The three major ingredients of milk chocolate are, in order of abundance, sugar, milk, and chocolate. Three to four pounds of milk are required to make one pound of milk chocolate. It is no [old] wives’ tale that milk chocolate addicts crave their ‘drug.’ Indeed, that is exactly what milk-morphine is, a drug.”[715]
U.S.D.A. statistics indicate, “Cheese consumption continues to rise.”[716] In 2001, Americans consumed 30 pounds of cheese per person, 8 times more than they
did in 1909 and more than twice as much as they did in 1975.”[717]
Neal Barnard, M.D., the author of Breaking the Food Seduction, (St. Martin's Press, June 2003) writes about “food giants,” such as McDonald’s (which the National Dairy Council spin doctors now call “quick service restaurants” instead of fast-food chains), who were sued for a customer’s obesity, diabetes, and related diseases purportedly resulting from addiction to McDonald’s food. “Big Food’s big defense—-that food isn’t addictive—-is rapidly eroding as scientists find biochemical evidence that certain foods almost certainly are.”[718] “[S]tudies suggest that cheese, chocolate, sugar and meat all spark the release of opiate-like substances that trigger the brain’s pleasure center and seduce us into eating them again and again.”[719]
“Cheese is an especially interesting case. In our own research studies at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, we’ve noticed that participants moving to a vegetarian diet have a harder time giving up cheese than almost any other food. In fact, cheese’s popularity may have less to do with its meltability and mouth-feel and more to do with its addictive qualities.”[720]
“Several scientific teams have shown that the principal protein in cheese, casein, breaks apart during digestion to produce abundant amounts of morphine-like compounds called [the aforementioned] casomorphins. Biologically, these opiates appear to be responsible for part of the mother-infant bond that occurs during nursing.”[721]
“Other research has shown that naloxone, an opiate-blocker used to treat morphine and heroin overdoses, reduces the desire for chocolate, sugar, cheese, and meat suggesting that their attraction does indeed come from druglike effects caused within the brain. No wonder so many of us are willing to drive to the 7-Eleven in the middle of the night, desperate for more chocolate or another frozen pizza.”[722] Ice cream is a case in which sugar, another addictive substance, added to the addictive cream, makes it irresistible to many. It helps to be aware of it.
Starbucks rejects rBGH milk because of health concerns. Starbucks, the renowned coffee giant with 15 million customers, “uses some 32 million gallons of milk per year in their coffees, milk shakes and ice creams.”[723] “Starbucks made the switch to recombinant bovine growth hormone-free milk and are taking organic milk off the menu in all of their stores, effective Feb. 26 [2008]. According to the Wall Street Journal, Starbucks added organic milk to the menu in order to cater to customers who didn't want to drink milk from animals that were given the artificial growth hormone.”[724] “’Far and away, the No. 1 reason people are purchasing organic milk is because [it lacks] the
growth hormone,’ Michelle Gass, the company's senior vice president of global strategy, told the WSJ.”[725]
Dairy is linked to Multiple Sclerosis. “[S]tudies have found that the incidence of MS is higher in areas of high consumption of dairy produce (Malosse et al, 1993, Malosse et al, 1994, Sepcic et al, 1993, Butcher, 1986, Butcher, 1992). Other work has linked dairy proteins to multiple sclerosis at the cellular level (Dosch et al, 2001, Dosch et al, 2001, Stefferl et al, 2001).”[726]
The seminal paper, “Correlation between milk and dairy product consumption and multiple sclerosis prevalence: a worldwide study,” by D. Malosse, H. Perron, A. Sasco, and J.M. Seigneurin, of the Laboratoire de Virologie, Faculté de Médecine, CHRU, Grenoble, France, which appeared in the journal Neuroepidemiology 11(4-6):304-12, 1992, appears in abstract on the National Institutes of Health website.
Multiple sclerosis (MS) epidemiology suggests that different factors are involved in the clinical expression of the disease. Alimentary cofactors have already been considered, but mainly theoretically. We have studied the relationship between MS prevalence and dairy product consumption in 27 countries and 29 populations all over the world. . . . A good correlation between liquid cow milk and MS prevalence (rho = 0.836) was found; this correlation was highly significant (p < 0.001). A low but still significant correlation was obtained with cream or butter consumption (rho = 0.619 and rho = 0.504, respectively). No correlation was found for cheese. These results suggest that liquid cow milk could contain factor(s) - no longer present in the processed milk [as cheese] - influencing the clinical appearance of MS. The possible role of some dairy by-products is discussed in the light of a multifactorial etiology of MS.[727]
Source: D. Malosse, H. Perron, A. Sasco, J.M. Seigneurin, Correlation between milk and dairy product consumption and multiple sclerosis prevalence: a worldwide study, Neuroepidemiology 11(4-6):304-12, 1992; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1291895
ADD and dairy. “Florida researcher, Robert Cade, M.D., and his colleagues [“Autism, 1999(3)”] have identified a milk protein, casomorphin, as the [a?] probable cause of [so-called] attention deficit disorder.”[728]
Autism, schizophrenia and dairy. Robert Cade, M.D., et al., “Autism, 1999,(3)” “found Beta-casomorphin-7 [a milk protein] in high concentrations in the blood and urine of patients with either schizophrenia or autism.”[729]
“Eighty percent of cow's milk protein is casein. It has been documented that casein breaks down in the stomach to produce a peptide casomorphine, an opiate,”[730] which could be related to hallucinatory schizophrenia or detached autism.
Acne and indigestion thrive on dairy products. “According to gynecologist, Christiane Northrup, ‘Stopping dairy food often improves . . . allergies, sinusitis and even recurrent vaginitis.’ Other problems associated with dairy food may include: benign breast conditions, chronic vaginal discharge, acne, fibroids, and chronic intestinal upset.”[731]
The genesis of adolescent acne may contain facts that explain the new surge in adult acne, among the middle-aged, who are eating more dairy foods. A “Harvard study links dairy products to adolescent acne. A group of 47,000 women from the Nurses’ Health Study was asked to provide information about several aspects of their diet during high school as well as any incidence of physician-diagnosed severe teenage acne. Researchers noted a positive association with total milk and skim milk consumption, along with instant breakfast drinks, sherbet, cottage cheese, and cream cheese. No association was found with several other foods often thought to affect acne, including soda, french fries, chocolate candy, and pizza. The scientists postulate that hormones and bioactive ingredients found in milk may be responsible.[732]
Source: C.A. Adebamowo , D. Spiegelman , F.W. Danby , A.L. Frazier , W.C. Willettt , M.D. Holmes . High school dietary dairy intake and teenage acne. J Am Acad Dermatol. 52:207-14,2005.
An article published on February 6, 2008 by Jeff Chirico, “Treating Adult Acne,” notes, “[M]ore and more adult women [and possibly men] are suffering from breakouts these days. In fact new studies show that as many as 35% of women in their 30's, 40's, and 50's actually have acne.”[733] It is possible that the increase in consumption of certain dairy products as a result of ad campaigns promising weight loss, or the lure of membership in the “Got Milk?” celebrity mustache club, has brought more acne to adults.
Mr. Chirico, a consumer reporter, asks, “Could too much milk be bad for your skin? Good Housekeeping says hormones in milk may provoke pimples. Some dermatologists are now telling their patients with stubborn acne to try a dairy-free diet.”[734]
Americans eat too much animal protein, but when seniors reduce animal protein intake, you must substitute adequate vegetable protein to avoid muscle wasting. Animal protein creates an unhealthy acidic environment; whereas vegetable protein tends to support homeostasis.
For example, high animal protein may cause or increase hypertension, especially if you consume much salt. On the other hand, an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in January 2008 by Denise K. Houston, et al., “Dietary protein intake is associated with lean mass change in older, community-dwelling adults: the Health, Aging, and Body Composition (Health ABC) Study,” warns that low protein intake is tied to muscle loss in seniors (sarcopenia).[735]
Dairy is a poor protein choice because it lacks fiber and can cause more muscle loss. Seniors find ease of access to dairy tempting; no cooking, no dishes if you pop open an individual yogurt, or eat ice cream right out of its plastic container (not recommended), BUT lactose, casein (that allergen that creates mucus), sugars, aspartame, or sucralose are serious problems. Try a non-genetically modified soy or (brown) rice yogurt enhanced with probiotics (the good bacteria that help you digest your food properly) instead; it’s just as convenient. The container should say, “Live and active cultures.” Do not drink tap water with probiotics; tap water kills the active cultures. Non-dairy probiotics, such as acidophilus and bifidus, can also be purchased alone without a food matrix. “The live active cultures create lactase, the enzyme lactose-intolerant people lack.”[736]
The muscle wasting problem affects seniors who do not live in communal settings (to which the title of the article refers), as well as those who do. Many elderly men and women do not eat. There may be several reasons; poverty, depression, inconvenience, confusion in decision-making, forgetting to eat. Some have denture difficulties and cannot chew without discomfort. TMJ, spongy gums, or malocclusion, may also pose problems. Some actually do eat cat food from those little cans with many tantalizing flavors, such as “Seafood Serenade of Shrimp à la Newburg,” but that is designed for cat digestion, not for human assimilation. That is not quality protein, and it contains mystery filler. Leave it for Garfield; bet he won’t eat it.
Seniors need 9 grams/Kg body weight of quality protein per day to conserve muscle mass and stay well. 50-75 grams of quality protein per person per day is needed, more if there has been trauma or infection.
Those over 60 would benefit from a non-dairy protein shake, such as non-genetically engineered soy or rice protein, three times a day. In the morning, you could have a protein shake with fresh or frozen organic (or fruit-washed) berries. Berries are a great source of fiber and nutrients; add flaxseed or coconut oil for your EFA and DHA source. In the afternoon, eat lunch as a solid meal (no processed foods); have a small evening meal (try mashing all or part of a banana into your protein shake—-it’s filling, good for you, and delicious). Be sure to exercise during the day.
Persons with difficulty chewing could have two or three liquid shake meals, as described above, and eat one solid meal at lunch. This is actually healthful for all of us. (Snacks, such as fresh fruit--let low glycemic index fruits, or fruit powders processed without sugar, predominate--or lightly blanched vegetables are good—-skip the sour cream or cottage cheese dip; try garlic-ginger-low-salt tamari sauce instead.) You’ll feel lighter, and have better muscle tone to be stronger.
Milk consumption may put you at risk for Parkinson’s Disease; contamination by neurotoxins may contribute. More than two glasses per day results in twice the incidence of Parkinson’s compared to non-milk drinkers.
We all remember Katharine Hepburn, who had Parkinson’s Disease, trembling in TV interviews, even as early as the film “The Lion in Winter,” in 1968, when she was only 61. She favored milk and, throughout her life, she drank “eight glasses a day,”[737] along with eating much animal protein, especially big hearty daily breakfasts.[738] True, she lived into her nineties, but the Parkinson’s symptoms were there for years, so that her quality of life was affected in a negative way.
“The actress Katherine Hepburn could eat one lb. of chocolate in one single day, and confessed she was a so-called chocoholic.” She used to say, chin and voice quivering, “What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of [milk] chocolate” (Time Magazine, November 17, 1980). (Remember, one pound of milk chocolate contains three to four pounds of milk.) Her longevity may owe much to her love of exercise, such as walking and swimming.
“Milk consumption may pose [a] risk factor for Parkinson’s.”[739] And we have much more than empirical evidence for milk as a culprit. A “study strengthens evidence suggesting a connection between milk intake and Parkinson’s disease. Researchers from the Honolulu Heart Program have found that adult milk intake doubles the risk for the disease. After gathering data on the diets of 7,500 men, researchers tracked milk intake, as well as intake of dietary calcium from non-dairy sources, along with other lifestyle factors, for 30 years. A significant association was found only for milk, with those drinking more than 16 ounces per day suffering twice the incidence of Parkinson’s compared to those who drank no milk at all. Researchers theorize that the contamination of milk with pesticides and other neurotoxins may play a role.”[740]
Source: M.Park, G.W. Ross, H.Petrovitch, et al., Consumption of milk and calcium in midlife and the future risk of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 64:1047-51, 2005
Dairy intake linked to Parkinson’s disease in men.
Reuters reports on MSNBC on April 19, 2007 in “Dairy Intake Tied to Parkinson’s Disease in Men” that “[a] new study has confirmed a relationship between consuming large amounts of dairy products and an increase in the rate of Parkinson’s disease in men, but the reason for this relationship remains a puzzle.”[741]
Researchers found that among more than 130,000 U.S. adults followed for nine years, those who ate the largest amount of dairy foods had an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, a disorder in which movement-regulating cells in the brain die or become impaired.
There was a clear pattern seen among men, whose Parkinson’s risk increased in tandem with consumption of diary, particularly milk. The results were more ambiguous among women, however.”[742]
“The findings, which appear in the American Journal of Epidemiology, echo those of earlier studies that found a link between dairy consumption and Parkinson’s in men,” “lead study author Dr. Honglei Chen, a researcher at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., told Reuters Health.
Larger studies are needed to find out which dairy products might be responsible, and why, according to Chen. The findings are based on detailed dietary and lifestyle information collected from 57,689 men and 73,175 women who took part in a cancer prevention study. Over nine years, 250 men and 138 women were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.”[743]
“Men with the highest levels of dairy consumption were 60 percent more likely to develop the disease than those who consumed the least amounts of dairy, the study found. Men in the highest-intake group consumed an average of 815 grams of dairy per day, which is roughly equivalent to three to four glasses of milk; those in the lowest-intake group consumed 78 grams of dairy per day, on average. Milk, rather than dairy products like yogurt and cheese, explained most of the association, according to Chen’s team.”[744]
“This study and previous ones indicate that calcium, vitamin D and fat are not responsible for the link between dairy foods and Parkinson’s disease. One theory is that pesticides or other nerve-damaging toxins present in milk could contribute to Parkinson’s disease over time.”[745] “Furthermore, pesticide residues may also be present in other foods, but no other foods were related to Parkinson’s disease risk in this study, the researcher noted.” Dr. Chen “added, since the dairy-Parkinson’s link has now been seen consistently in different studies, further research is needed to understand why.”[746]
Dairy products can compromise your eye health. Dairy products contain sugars that may create an environment in which cataracts may form, along with other eye problems.
“What causes it? A clear fluid flows in and out of the space at the front of the eye, nourishing nearby tissues. Glaucoma causes the fluid to pass through too slowly or to stop draining altogether. [Casein, the “glue” in dairy may make the fluid viscous, or interfere with the flow of blood to the eyes through narrow capillaries]. As the fluid builds up, the pressure inside the eye increases, causing damage to the optic nerve and vision loss.”[748]
“[E]arly detection and treatment are the best defenses against serious visual damage. At-risk patients should avoid medicines [such as antihistamines or blood pressure medications] that [can] increase eye pressure.”[749]
One strategy with regard to glaucoma is to remove dairy from your diet. Instead of dairy, eat green leafy and yellow vegetables containing lutein for eye health. Organic bilberry jam (no added sugar) is good for vision, no cream cheese with that jelly, though.
Illegal (and legal) use of sulfonamides and other drugs in dairy cows occurs, polluting milk. This memo, which suggests pollutants that may have been used, was sent to veterinarians by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine.
August 19, 2005
“Reminder -- Extra-Label Use of Sulfonamides in Lactating Dairy Cattle Prohibited
FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) would like to remind veterinarians that extra-label use of sulfonamides in lactating dairy cattle is prohibited. CVM has received some information indicating that sulfonamides, some in combination with trimethoprim, are being prescribed for use in treating conditions in lactating dairy cattle for which they are not approved. The unapproved use of sulfonamides is one of the most frequent causes of violative residues in food-producing animals.
The prohibition against extra-label use of sulfonamides in lactating dairy cattle is based on a finding by CVM that the extra-label use of these drugs presents a risk to the public health for the purposes of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA) of 1994. These extra-label uses are capable of causing violative residues of the drugs in milk and meat.
The Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow licensed veterinarians to prescribe extra-label uses of approved animal drugs and human drugs in animals. Section 530.25(a)(2) of the AMDUCA provides that the Agency may prohibit an extra-label drug use in food producing animals if, after affording an opportunity for public comment, the Agency finds that such use presents a risk to the public health.
The following drugs (both animal and human formulations), families of drugs, and substances are prohibited for extra-label uses in all food-producing animals:
Currently sulfadimethoxine is the only marketed sulfonamide with approved formulations for lactating dairy cattle. Products on the list of prohibited drugs may only be used according to the approved indications for use in their labeling. Some formulations are not specifically approved for lactating dairy cattle. Some of the prohibited drugs are approved for one class of food animal but not in others. Veterinarians should read the label closely.”[750] End of memo.
Milk contains Bovine Leukemia Virus. “The editors of the February 25, 2002 issue [of “Hoard’s Dairyman, the self proclaimed ‘National Dairy Farm Magazine’"] must have been counting ad revenue and ignoring possible repercussions from the half-page advertisement which appears on page 150. The ad shows cows in a field, and challenges the reader in a bold type statement: "You Can't Tell By Looking."[751]
“The text of the ad reveals that ‘most dairy herds are affected by bovine leukemia virus.’ What? America drinks body fluids from cows with leukemia?”[752]
“I knew that bovine leukemia is a problem,” says Robert Cohen, Executive Director of the Dairy Education Board, “but I had no idea of the extent of that problem. According to the ad, 89% of the dairy herds in the United States have cows infected with leukemia.”[753]
“Here is an excerpt from a letter written by breast cancer surgeon, Robert Kradjian, M.D., to his patients:
“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.”[754]
“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?”[755]
“If the bovine leukemia viruse 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.”[756]
“We know that [the] virus is capable of producing leukemia in other animals. Can [it] contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)?”[757]
Dairy is linked to migraines and headaches. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “migraine” as “[a] severe recurring headache, usually affecting only one side of the head, characterized by sharp pain and often accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and visual disturbances.”[758] “More than 26 million Americans suffer from the neurologic disorder of migraine, according to the American Medical Association.”[759] The FDA advises that you avoid “foods containing a chemical called ‘tyramine’ (for example, aged cheeses, sour cream, and yogurt)” “Potential dietary triggers include ripened cheeses - Cheddar, Emmentaler, Stilton, Brie and Camembert,” according to the National Headache Foundation.[760]
Hormones play a role in provoking headaches. “Because of the impact of hormones, women who are . . . using birth control pills, or going through menopause often experience an increase or decrease in the frequency of headaches,” according to Fred Sheftell, M.D., the founder and director of the New England Center for Headache.[762]
Steroidal dangers, and worse, contaminate dairy products. Harmful steroids are “found in most dairy foods.”[763] Consumer Reports warns,“[I]t is important to know what the government allows in feed or to be used in production of the following animals: Dairy cows—-antibiotics, pig and chicken byproducts, hormones (for growth), pesticides, sewage sludge.” [764]
“Animal byproduct—-Most parts of an animal that do not include muscle meat are considered to be byproduct including organ meat, nervous tissue, cartilage, bone, blood and excrement. These byproducts are heated to a high temperature and fed back to food [and dairy] animals.”[765]
Milk-alkalai syndrome is another dairy danger. “Another dairy danger, milk-alkalai syndrome, occurs when calcium carbonate antacids are combined with dairy foods, triggering excess calcium and poor kidney function.”[766]
Dairy allergies can be physically painful and may masquerade as psychological illness. The following symptoms may accompany dairy allergies:
Mucus in throat, clearing throat
Chest congestion
Nasal congestion
Shortness of breath
Aggressive outbursts
Depression
Awakening with mucus in the corners of your eyes
Bad breath
Insomnia
Weight gain
Stomach cramps
Bloating
Flatulence
Diarrhea
Constipation
Nausea
Asthma
Headaches
Skin rash
Eczema
Hives
Fatigue
Bleeding from the bowel
Rectal fissures
Rectal itching
Sinusitis
Anaphylactic shock
Autoimmune responses
Recently, I was called in on the case of a famous performer, who would become ill just before going onstage. He had several physical problems at those times from the list above, including nausea, as well as psychological difficulties, mainly aggressive outbursts. He would become completely upset at the time when he needed to be most in command of the situation.
I asked a few key questions and discovered that he would tend to become fearful before a show and had become accustomed to taking a glass of warm milk to calm his nerves. I suggested that he stop taking the milk. His distress disappeared, as soon as the milk disappeared. Apart from his original jitters, which subsided as he learned to use stress reduction techniques, such as visualization and meditation, he was fine. He had a cerebral allergy to dairy that resembled a psychotic disorder, which he was about to treat with anti-psychotic prescriptions, and tranquilizers, which would probably have spelled slurred speech, slow reactions, a reduction in alertness, and disaster for his career. Dairy allergies can weaken your focus or concentration, and can be mistaken for adult ADD, or psychosis.
Low-fat and non-fat dairy products (more than full-fat) aggravate allergies. “The high protein content of low-fat dairy products is actually more allergenic than dairy products with a high-fat content. Dairy products are one of the leading causes of food allergies and food sensitivities causing allergic responses in people of all ages.”[767]
“Allergies to dairy products can cause a wide range of symptoms including” those listed above, as well as “hyperactivity,” “poor appetite,” and “malabsorption of nutrients.”[768]
The addition of aspartame to many non-fat and low-fat dairy products may directly account for some allergic reactions, and aspartame may exacerbate symptoms caused by other factors.
The first step toward alleviating allergies, colds, sinusitis and immune system dysfuntion is to remove all dairy products from your diet. Christiane Northrup, M.D. “says that patients who ‘eliminate dairy products for an extended period and eat a balanced diet . . . suffer less from colds and sinus infections.’"[769] When you realize that you can breathe freely without dairy, you may never return to it.
“One of the best screening tests and the first line of treatment for allergy and immune system dysfunction is removing dairy products from the diet,”[770] according to Michael Lam, M.D., M.P.H., a specialist in Nutritional and Anti-Aging Medicine, who is Board-certified by the American Board of Anti-aging Medicine.[771] “Reports of marked reduction in colds, flu, sinusitis, and ear infections are commonly reported after discontinuation of milk.[772]
Eighty percent of milk protein is casein, a superglue that produces phlegm by compromising your immune system. “Cow's milk contains many proteins that are poorly digested and harmful to the immune system. When protein in our food is properly broken down by the digestive system into amino acids, it does no harm to the immune system. Some food proteins such as casein, however, are absorbed into the blood fully undigested, provoking an immune response. Repeated and persistent exposure to these proteins disrupts normal immune function, leading to a multitude of diseases.”[773]
“Eighty percent of milk protein consists of casein, a tenacious glue. Casein is the glue that is used to hold a label to a bottle of beer. Try to scrape off one of those labels, then consider the effects of casein in your body. Casein is the glue that holds together wood in furniture. Behold the power of glue and behold the power of horrible bowel movements.”[774]
“Casein is a foreign protein and your body reacts to its presence by creating an antibody. That antibody-antigen
reaction creates histamines. Anti-histamines (like Benadryl) are used to counter the effects of histamines. Mucus and phlegm are produced as a result of cheese consumption. Mucus congests internal body organs. Mucus creates phlegm. Got Gorgonzola? Got glue!” [775] Casein is an ingredient in milk that causes allergies.
Hidden sources of phosphorus in your diet may adversely affect your kidneys and open a portal to osteoporosis. Jaime Uribarri of the Division of Nephrology, Dept of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City and Mona S. Calvo of the FDA in Washington, D.C. co-authored, “Hidden Sources of Phosphorus in the Typical American Diet: Does it Matter in Nephrology?” Drs. Uribarri and Calvo state, “Elevated serum phosphorus is a major, preventable etiologic factor associated with the increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of dialysis [kidney disease] patients.”[776]
“An important determinant of serum phosphorus is the dietary intake of this mineral; this makes dietary restriction of phosphorus a cornerstone for the prevention and treatment of hyperphosphatemia.”[777] Some phosphorus is needed, however, in the diets of normal persons. “The average daily dietary intake of phosphorus is about 1550 mg for males and 1000 mg for females. In general, foods high in protein are also high in phosphorus. These figures, however, are changing as phosphates are currently being added to a large number of processed foods including meats, cheeses, dressings, beverages, and bakery products. As a result, depending on the food choices, such additives may increase the phosphorus intake by as much as 1g/day.”[778] Phosphates in both diet cola and sugar-laden colas sabotage your calcium intake by pulling calcium out of your bones. These are the same phosphates now being added to cheese.
Nature's greens are “gardens of calcium.”[779] “[D]airy proteins have dangerously high phosphorus-to-calcium ratios, leaching calcium from the bones while preventing its absorption.”[780] Dairy lacks co-factors for calcium absorption. “Dairy foods contain very little magnesium, and negligible amounts, if any, of other nutrients, essential for proper calcium assimilation.”[781]
“Green foods are the earth's most plentiful, concentrated sources of calcium and co-factors essential to absorb it. Here is a sampling of what they have to offer:
* Magnesium-rich chlorophyll in greens stimulates the hormone calcitonin to boost calcium in bones by drawing it from soft tissue.
* Green foods provide ample vitamin K, which activates osteocalcin, the key non-collagen protein in bone needed to anchor calcium molecules.
* Green foods contain sufficient boron required to activate vitamin D, critical to calcium absorption.
* Silicon, found in all plant fibers, enhances calcium absorption while rebuilding connective tissue.
* Green foods are chock full of enzymes that easily release calcium and other minerals.
Got calcium?
Greens and other plant foods easily hold their own against dairy in terms of calcium content. Here are some typical calcium contents for a 3.5-ounce portion:
Sea vegetables
Hijiki -1400 mg
Kelp -1099 mg
Wheat grass -- 514 mg
Almonds -- 233 mg
Amaranth -- 222 mg
Sunflower seeds -174 mg
Garbanzo beans -- 150 mg
Kale -- 134 mg
Yogurt- 121 mg
Milk -- 119 mg
Collard greens -- 117 mg
Tofu -- 100 mg
Cream cheese -- 77 mg
Cottage cheese – 60 mg”[782]
Dairy products contain progesterone that can drive your own hormones off balance toward breast cancer, which can affect men as well as women. Dairy products can raise your normal levels of progesterone, a hormone that can increase your appetite, and promote the storage of fat, thereby preventing its use as fuel, promoting fatigue. Also, postmenopausal women who are taking synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which we do not recommend, should be advised that dairy products may increase the dose of progesterone in your HRT because dairy contains progesterone. “Currently, most major health organizations (including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Heart Association, and the North American Menopause Society) recommend against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic disease.”[783] (“Content [in the previous statement is] provided by the faculty of Harvard Medical School.”)
On December 14, 2007, ”Milk Products Are a Source of Dietary Progesterone,” was presented by Goodson et al. at the 30th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS). It became clear that “[p]hysicians may want to advise patients who are at high risk for breast cancer and other progesterone-sensitive conditions to avoid ice cream, butter, and other fatty dairy products.”[784] Progesterone is highly fat-soluble, and tends to settle in fatty breast tissue.
“People absorb significant amounts of bovine progesterone (identical to human progesterone) from dairy products, thanks to the practice among dairy farmers of keeping dairy cattle pregnant most of the time, according to research led by William H. Goodson III, MD, Senior Clinical Research Scientist, California Pacific Medical Research Institute, San Francisco, California.”[785]
“Dr. Goodson’s group “measured salivary progesterone levels in 17 male volunteers at baseline and 24 hours later after consuming three servings of high-fat dairy foods (2 tablespoons butter, 2 ounces cheese, and a quart of premium ice cream) between morning and afternoon. The procedure was repeated a week later. Salivary progesterone levels were seen to spike by 30% to 100% in nearly all subjects after both sets of feedings. Dr. Goodson said males were chosen because their normal concentrations of progesterone are lower and less cyclic than in females and hence an effect would be easier to measure.”[786]
“. . . Dr. Goodson said most dairy cows began to be maintained in nearly constant pregnancy in the mid-20th century to maximize calf production. This results in increased progesterone levels in milk. Unnoticed dietary progesterone might explain several medical trends identified in the latter half of the 20th century, including rising incidence of breast cancer and progressively earlier menarche in girls, Dr. Goodson's group suggested.”[787]
Because progesterone dissolves readily in fat, it should be absorbed more efficiently in high-fat products. Dr. Goodson said that plain milk, either skim or whole, is probably a less important source of dietary progesterone due to low concentration of fat (4% for whole milk). ‘It's the high-fat things that really get to you,’ he said.”[788]
“The group measured progesterone levels in high-fat dairy products. Foods that were 70% to 80% dairy fat contained 175 to 300 ng/mL of progesterone, they found.”[789]
"’The amount of progesterone in 200 mL of ice cream would be approximately one-one-hundredth of a pharmacological adult dose of 2 mg,’ according to the report.”[790]
“Several previous studies have concluded that dairy consumption is unrelated to breast cancer incidence, according to Dr. Goodson and colleagues. But they also pointed to a more detailed study that examined particular dairy products, which did find associations between breast cancer incidence and high-fat cheeses.”[791]
Cheese is a medium for bacteria that cause listeria, diarrhea, and irritable bowel syndrome. “Cheese makes a remarkable culture medium for bacteria, which stay alive for up to six months. ...Eat listeria and it can take up to 45 days for you to get sick. Would you make that connection? Cheeses can also contain Mycobacterium paratuberculosis which causes diarrhea and irritable bowel syndrome [see also Crohn’s Disease section]. Forty million Americans are so affected.”[792]
Paratuberculosis bacteria in milk, and Crohn’s Disease. “Research points to a possible connection between gastrointestinal Crohn's disease and the milk we drink. Four studies show that the bacterium Mycobacterium paratuberculosis (MP); which is found in an almost identical Johne's disease in cattle, survives the pasteurization process and can infect us through the dairy products we consume every day. This disease has already infected between 500,000 and 1 million people in the US alone and approximately 55 Americans are newly diagnosed each day. At least half of these victims will have an inflamed intestine surgically removed.” [793]
Michael Greger, M.D., wrote “Paratuberculosis And Crohn's Disease: Got Milk?” “The cattle disease,” Dr. Greger writes, “which became known as Johne's disease (pronounced yo-neez), is known to be caused by bacteria called Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, also known as Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, or MAP. MAP belongs to an infamous class of microbes called mycobacteria which cause diseases such as tuberculosis and leprosy.”[794]
“Mycobacterium paratuberculosis is one of the most enigmatic bacteria known. It lives inside the hosts' cells, but has no known toxins and doesn't seem to damage the cells. The damage, much like in diseases like hepatitis, comes from the hosts' reaction to it. MAP triggers a massive immune reaction against the body's own tissues in which MAP is hiding, in this case the gut. It is known that M. paratuberculosis--MAP--causes Johne's disease in cattle, but does it cause Crohn's disease in people?”[795]
“The epidemic of Johne's disease, like that of mad cow disease, is an indictment of factory farming. Intensive confinement systems in animal agriculture have been accused of not only threatening the global environment, but public health as well. The unnatural concentration of animals raised for slaughter, for example, has led to other human tragedies including the single worst epidemic in recorded world history, the 1918 influenza pandemic. In that case, the unnatural density and proximity of pigs and ducks raised for slaughter led to the deaths of upwards of 40 million people.”[796]
“This potential crisis is also an indictment of an industry that continues to risk public safety and a government that seems to protect business interests over those of the consumer. As Karen Meyer recently told the LA Times, "There comes a point in time where consumer health takes precedence over commercial concerns."[797]
“The balance of evidence strongly suggests a causative link between Mycobacterium paratuberculosis and Crohn's disease. This public health issue has been at the periphery of the dairy industry's agenda for years, a nagging concern on the back burner. The consumer movement needs to move it to the front burner and needs to turn up the heat.”[798]
Americans consume the most calcium and dairy, and have the highest rate of osteoporosis. “Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and can, in fact, be harmful to health.”[799] “Numerous nutrition policy statements recommend the consumption of 800 to 1500 mg of calcium largely from dairy products for osteoporosis prevention; however, the findings of epidemiologic and prospective studies have raised questions about the efficacy of the use of dairy products for the promotion of bone health.”[800]
“Epidemiologists have long known that countries with the highest dairy product consumption, such as the United States and Finland, suffer from high osteoporosis and fracture rates.”[801]
“Not only do Americans consume more calcium than almost any other group of people on the planet, they also have the highest rate of osteoporosis.”[802] Either Americans are not absorbing the calcium, or they are absorbing too much of it. “[T]oo much calcium can actually make your bones more brittle.”[803]
“Dairy pushers [now] spend over 300 million dollars a year to ensure that you are getting the message about calcium and milk. This message from the dairy council has a lot of bleed-over and can account for the popularity of all calcium-infused products,”[804] such as supplements, “cereal with milk, calcium-infused orange juice . . . calcium fortified snack bars, more milk and milk products, calcium infused bread, . . .a chocolate calcium treat. And, . . .if you take Tums or [an]other similar antacid, [which I do not recommend], you are getting even more calcium.”[805] You “might begin to think that there is a Calcium Cartel of some kind pushing calcium on us.”[806] However, there is no telling how much calcium from these sources you may or may not actually absorb. (That is why calcium from vegetables and perhaps a reasonable supplemental amount is safest.)
“Don’t misunderstand the point . . . Calcium is an important nutrient. It is the most abundant mineral in the body and is essential for the clotting of blood, stimulating many hormones, conducting nerve impulses, regulating heartbeat, building bones and many other functions. But even too much of a good thing can be dangerous. Taking large amounts of calcium can lead to many serious conditions and even life-threatening conditions; it also increases the risk for kidney stones.”[807]
“We have all seen bones and know how hard they are; the common assumption is to think that bones are made up from only calcium. The truth is that our bones are built on a foundation of collagen and other proteins along with calcium, magnesium, boron and other minerals. This combination of proteins and minerals is called the bone matrix.”[808]
“Preventing osteoporosis does not depend on calcium alone, but rather on preserving the bone matrix. The bone matrix is a living tissue whose strength, structure, and integrity depend on many factors--including other minerals besides calcium--and absorption of these nutrients from the gut.”[809]
“[W]hy do people who have no access to dairy products or supplements continue their lives mostly free from the destructiveness of osteoporosis? Many traditional cultures in the world do not consume milk or milk products, nor can they go to the corner store and pick up a chocolate-fudge calcium bar. And, yet, in this isolation from the supposed tools of good bone building, osteoporosis is almost unheard of.”[810]
“Taking enough calcium is certainly important for people who are growing bones (like children and young adults), but calcium supplementation alone has not done well in studies of adults that measure bone density before and after supplementation. Studies of postmenopausal women who were taking between 1 and 1.5 grams (1000 to 1500 milligrams) of calcium a day [alone] were actually associated with an increase in fractures, not a decrease (T.J. Wilkin. Changing perceptions in osteoporosis. British Medical Journal 1999 Mar 27;318(7187):862-4.)[811]
“World Health Organization recommendations for preventing osteoporosis acknowledge this ‘calcium paradox.’ The agency advises that individuals 50 years of age or older from countries with a high fracture incidence only consume a minimum of 400–500 mg of calcium daily, far less than the current—-and inflated—-U.S. government recommendations, which range from 800 to 1,300 mg of calcium daily for all ages.”[812]
The WHO sees whole populations of strong-boned adults who never eat dairy. John McDougall, M.D. writes, “The African Bantu woman provides an excellent example of good health. Her diet is free of milk and still provides 250–400 mg of calcium from plant sources, which is half the amount consumed by Western women. Bantu women commonly have 10 babies during their life and breast feed each of them for about ten months. But even with this huge calcium drain and relatively low calcium intake, osteoporosis is relatively unknown among these women.”[813]
“The reason why the people in indigenous cultures do not have any osteoporosis to speak of is because of two factors. The first is that most people in these cultures use their bodies much more than we do. They walk, they lift heavy things, they move around. All these activities stimulate bone growth and help keep these bones strong throughout life.”[814]
“The second is that even though they are getting a low amount of calcium by our standards, the amount of calcium they do get is balanced with magnesium. Magnesium is the forgotten mineral in the bone matrix. Not only is magnesium needed to build strong, flexible bones, but it is also needed to help absorb calcium from the gut.”[815] I suggest “a 1:1 ratio, where calcium and magnesium are consumed at equal quantities. It is difficult to get enough magnesium if you are not taking a form that is easily absorbable.”[816] I recommend calcium and magnesium from citrate at 800-1,000 mg/day of each, depending on how much calcium you are getting from calcium-fortified products, such as rice yogurt or soy yogurt.
“Studies show that physical activity has the greatest positive impact on adolescents’[and possibly adults’] bone health. In addition, spending some time in the sunlight, avoiding smoking and high salt and caffeine intakes, and eating lots of fruits and vegetables are all good strategies for supporting healthy bone development and maintenance. It is also a good idea for children and adults to get at least 400 to 500 mg calcium per day from plant sources such as beans, greens, whole grain bread, tortillas, fortified juices, cereals, or nondairy milks.”[817]
“In fact, we found no evidence to support the notion that milk is a preferred source of calcium. While milk and other dairy products contain calcium, many factors affect the availability and retention of the calcium from these products.” [818]
“Calcium in plant foods is better absorbed. For example, the calcium in dairy products is not as well absorbed as that in many dark green leafy vegetables, but has an absorption fraction similar to that of calcium supplements, calcium-enriched beverages, calcium-set tofu, sweet potatoes, and beans. One cup of cooked kale or turnip greens, 2⁄3 cup of tofu, or 1-2⁄3 cups of broccoli provide the same amount of absorbable calcium as 1 cup of cow’s milk.”[819]
“Dairy products also contain nutrients that interfere with calcium balance. Dairy protein and sodium increase the urinary excretion of calcium.”[820]
Consuming animal protein creates an acidic environment to weaken your immune system and predispose you to develop cancer. Dairy products are acid-forming foods. Your body’s internal (hormonal) milieu operates with optimum precision at a neutral pH of 7; a pH above 7 is alkaline, below 7 is acidic in varying degrees. “Otto Warburg [Ph.D., M.D.] (two times Nobel prize winner) reportedly produced cancer in 42 species of animals simply by lowering their pH which deprived their cells of oxygen. He reportedly did this simply by injecting acid into their bodies. Just a little too acid blood drives blood oxygen levels down dramatically. According to Michael Lam M.D. there is a 64.9% decrease in blood oxygen with only a pH drop from 7.45 to 7.30. Too alkaline blood lowers oxygen too, but too acid seems to be by far the biggest problem.” [821]
Dairy products contain saturated fats that cause hardening of the arteries, heart disease, and stroke. “High-fat dairy products such as cheese, butter and cream contain saturated fat. Saturated fat is the most important dietary factor involved in raising blood cholesterol levels. The consumption of high-fat dairy products has also been found to cause atherosclerosis, heart disease and stroke. Finland which has a death rate from heart disease that is among the highest in the world, also has one of the highest rates of dairy product consumption.”[822]
Low-fat milk and cheese are unacceptable alternatives that are also too high in total fat. “Low-fat milk and cheese products are still significantly high in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. For example, 2% milk has become much more popular than homogenized milk, yet it still derives one third of its total calories from fat. Skim milk mozzarella with approximately 15% milk-fat is considered a low-fat cheese, yet a 1-ounce slice contains 5 grams of fat, totaling 56% calories from fat! So don't be fooled by the "skim milk" label. The wide range of skimmed milk products available in grocery stores reflects health concerns over high-fat dairy products. But for many people, low-fat dairy products may still be an unacceptable alternative.”[823] Skim milk has just been linked again to prostate cancer, as discussed in a later section.
You don’t need dairy. “Here’s the truth: You don’t need [any] dairy products. In fact, the scientific evidence suggests that your health may well improve if you avoid them. One key danger [that we have touched upon briefly] is to your heart. Cheese, ice cream, milk, butter, and yogurt all contribute significant amounts of cholesterol and fat to the diet. Cheddar cheese, for example, derives about 70 percent of its calories from fat. And diets high in fat and saturated fat increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, the nation’s leading cause of death.”[824]
”Milk is touted for preventing osteoporosis. But the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study, which followed more than 75,000 women for 12 years, showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk. In fact, increased intake of calcium from dairy products was associated with a higher fracture risk. An Australian study showed the same results.” [825]
“Dairy consumption also appears to increase the risk of some cancers. At least six major studies have linked dairy consumption to prostate cancer, as distinguished Harvard nutrition researcher Dr. Walter Willett has noted. And several studies, including one published . . . in the International Journal of Cancer, suggest that dairy intake increases the risk of ovarian cancer.”[826]
In conclusion, several lines of evidence indicate that consumption of dairy products is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Avoidance of these products may offer a means of reducing risk of this common illness.[827]
"There is no human requirement for milk from a cow,”Suzanne Havala, R.D., author of the American Dietetic Association's “Position Paper on Vegetarian Diets”
writes.[828]
“North America has one of the highest consumptions of dairy products, and also the highest incidence of osteoporosis – a disease of brittle bones formed through the loss of calcium. The dairy lobby has many campaigns and advertisements encouraging people to consume large quantities of dairy products to ward off this dreaded disease later in life. But that's not the whole story.”[829]
“Regardless of how much calcium you take in, the amount your body can actually absorb and retain matters more. The high animal protein intake typical of North American diets can make it difficult to retain calcium,”[830] a phenomenon that is described below under Harvard’s suggestion to ward off osteoporosis by avoiding too much protein, especially animal protein.
America still responds to advertising. The most recent statistics available indicate that, “The average person living in the United States consumes over 600 pounds of dairy products every year, including about 420 pounds of fluid milk and cream, 70 pounds of various milk-based fats and oils, 30 pounds of cheese, and 17 pounds of ice cream. In aggregate, U.S. dairy farmers produce 163 billion pounds of milk and milk products a year.”[831]
“We weren't designed with some odd flaw requiring us to drink the milk of other animals. Yet humans are the only animals who drink another species' mother's milk. Indeed, just as dogs' milk is intended for puppies,. . . and humans' milk for human infants, cows' milk is for calves.”[832] “Our bodies treat cows' milk as an invader, and including milk and other dairy products in our diets is linked to many health problems.”[833] The last thing America needed was a federal recommendation to consume more dairy products.
The 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans increases daily dairy requirements. “Dairy products were upgraded in the 2005 revision of federal dietary guidelines, which recommended that people consume more low-fat milk and dairy products. An advisory committee that helped set the guidelines cited a report, partly financed by the dairy industry [emphasis added], which found that low-fat dairy products did not necessarily add to weight gain and that dairy products have certain nutrients that can help consumers meet dietary recommendations. The guidelines increased the amount of low-fat or fat-free dairy products to three cups a day, up from two cups.”[834] “ One serving is defined as 1 cup of milk, 2 slices of cheese or 3/4 cup of yogurt.”[835]
“In men and women aged 55 to 85 years, the addition of three daily eight-ounce servings of nonfat or 1 percent [BGH] milk for 12 weeks was associated with a 10 percent increase in serum IGF-1 concentration.”[836] IGF-1, as we know, is “a potent cancer tumor promoter.”[837]
Why are we now told to “[c]onsume 3 cups per day of fat-free or low-fat milk or equivalent milk products,”[838] instead of 2 cups? “The USDA's advisory committees have been dominated by the agriculture industry since the early 1950s, when the department devised the Four Food Groups.”[839]
According to the Harvard School of Public Health, “Intense lobbying efforts from a variety of food industries also helped shape the pyramid.”[840] Samuel Epstein, M.D. reports, “aggressive lobbying by the National Dairy Council and its well organized ‘hit squads’ targeting rBGH opponents, and an overwhelmingly uncritical media, have ignored or trivialized substantial scientific evidence on the hazards of rBGH milk, including a [decade-long] series of publications. . .in the International Journal of Health Services, the most prestigious international public health publication.”[841]
Creating the guidelines is still "political--from start to finish," said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University and author of the 2002 book, "Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health." who was on the 1995 Dietary Guidelines Committee.[842]
As of 2008, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, in accordance with its statement of purpose, as “[d]octors and laypersons working together for compassionate and effective medical practice, research, and health promotion, has “filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services for their roles in perpetuating unhealthy biases in federal diet guidelines.”[843] PCRM’s “lawsuit points out that more than half the members of the [2005] Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee have financial ties to the meat, egg, or dairy industries.”[844] “These include . . . the National Dairy Board.”[845]
“Evidence of a strong link between cancer risk and a high level of IGF-1 is now indisputable.” Harvard challenges 2005 Dietary Guidelines to warn of risk of cancer linked to IGF-1 in dairy. Harvard advises, “Currently, there's no good evidence that consuming more than one serving of milk per day in addition to a reasonable diet (which typically provides about 300 milligrams of calcium per day from nondairy sources) will reduce fracture risk. Because of unresolved concerns about the risk of ovarian and prostate cancer, it may be prudent to avoid higher intakes of dairy products.”[846]
“[R]esearchers at Harvard Medical School released a major study providing conclusive evidence that IGF-1 is a potent risk factor for prostate cancer. Should you be concerned? Yes, you certainly should, particularly if you drink milk produced in the United States.” [847] “IGF-1 is a very powerful hormone which has profound effects even though its [normal] concentration in the [human] blood serum is only about 200 ng/mL or 0.2 millionth of a gram per milliliter.”[848]
“IGF-1 is known to stimulate the growth of both normal and cancerous cells. . . . “[R]esearchers at Stanford University reported that IGF-1 promotes the growth of prostate cells. This was followed by the discovery that IGF-1 accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells.”[849]
“[R]esearchers at the National Institutes of Health reported that IGF-1 plays a central role . . . in the growth of tumours in breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and cancers of the pancreas and prostate. . . . [A]n international team of researchers reported the first epidemiological evidence that high IGF-1 concentrations are closely linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer.”[850]
“Other researchers provided evidence of IGF-1's link to breast and colon cancers. The . . . report by the Harvard researchers confirmed the link between IGF-1 levels in the blood and the risk of prostate cancer,”[851] a finding that is especially significant because “[t]he effects of IGF-1 concentrations on prostate cancer risk were found to be astoundingly large--much higher than for any other known risk factor. Men having an IGF-1 level between approximately 300 and 500 ng/mL were found to have more than four times the risk of developing prostate cancer than did men with a level between 100 and 185 ng/mL.”[852]
“The detrimental effect of high IGF-1 levels was particularly pronounced in men over 60 years of age. In this age group men with the highest levels of IGF-1 were eight times more likely to develop prostate cancer than men with low levels. The elevated IGF-1 levels were found to be present several years before an actual diagnosis of prostate cancer was made.”[853]
“The evidence of a strong link between cancer risk and a high level of IGF-1 is now indisputable. The question is why do some people have high levels while others do not? Is it all genetically ordained or could it be that diet or some other outside factor influences IGF-1 levels? Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Illinois is one scientist who strongly believes so.”[854]
Dr. Epstein, professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health at Chicago, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, in his “article in the International Journal of Health Sciences [sic] Services, [Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., "Unlabeled Milk from Cows Treated with Biosynthetic Growth Hormones: A Case of Regulatory Abdication," International Journal Of Health Services Vol. 26, No. 1 (1996), pgs. 173-185] clearly warned of the danger of high levels of IGF-1 contained in milk from cows injected with synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBGH). He postulated [early on] that IGF-1 in rBGH-milk could be a potential risk factor for breast and gastrointestinal cancers.”[855] Research proves him right.
“Some may argue that the IGF-1 levels are not increased in organic milk and this is likely true. However, the IGF-1 is still there, as it is in all animal milks.”[856] There is “some outstanding science documenting the reasons why you want to avoid drinking [dairy] milk.”[857]
And Harvard School of Public Health website goes on to say that although dairy products have “the highest concentration per serving of highly absorbable calcium,”[858] “[a]dditional evidence also supports the idea that American adults may not need as much calcium as is currently recommended. For example, in countries such as India, Japan, and Peru where average daily calcium intake is as low as 300 mg/day (less than a third of the US recommendation for adults, ages 19-50), the incidence of bone fractures is quite low.”[859] Even Harvard cites the humble, economical “dark leafy greens or dried beans” as alternative sources of absorbable calcium.[860]
Postmenopausal women and andropausal men risk bone fracture. “Postmenopausal women account for 80 percent of all cases of osteoporosis because estrogen production declines rapidly at menopause. Of course, men are also at risk of developing osteoporosis, but they tend to do so 5-10 years later than women, since testosterone levels do not fall abruptly the way estrogen does in women. It is estimated that osteoporosis will cause half of all women over age 50 to suffer a fracture of the hip, wrist, or vertebra.”[861] “It is estimated that as many as 30% to 40% of older adults with hip fractures are vitamin D insufficient. Therefore, older adults may benefit from supplemental vitamin D,”[862] which is discussed further below. Consider the options for preventing fractures in the next sections.
How can you slow down osteoporosis? “Preventing osteoporosis depends on two things: making the strongest, densest bones possible during the first 30 years of life and limiting the amount of bone loss in adulthood. There are a number of lifestyle factors that can help with the latter.” The following are recommended by Harvard School of Public Health as factors that can slow bone loss:
In short, the “Risk of osteoporosis can be lowered by reducing sodium intake, eating more fruits and vegetables, exercising, and getting enough calcium from plant foods and vitamin D from sunlight or fortified sources.”[864]
Vitamin D supplement decreases fractures, and may reduce elders’ falls. A February 2007 article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society presents evidence that “Vitamin D, taken in a high dose, may help prevent falls in the elderly.”[867]
“Vitamin D acts in the body as a hormone. Its tasks include keeping bones strong by boosting their calcium absorption. Vitamin D may also help muscle function.”[868]
“Vitamin D plays a critical role in maintaining bone health. When blood levels of calcium begin to drop, the body responds in several ways. It promotes the conversion of vitamin D into its active form, which then travels to the intestines (to encourage greater calcium absorption into the blood) and to the kidneys (to minimize calcium loss in the urine).”[869]
For bone health, an adequate intake of vitamin D is no less important than calcium. Vitamin D . . . can be made by the skin when it is exposed to sunlight in the summertime. But not all sunlight is created equal. Above 40 degrees latitude (north of San Francisco, Denver, Indianapolis, and Philadelphia), the winter sunlight isn't strong enough to promote vitamin D formation. Sunscreens also prevent the formation of vitamin D, although they are still recommended to reduce risk of sun-induced skin cancer and skin damage.[870]
An examination of clinical trials of vitamin D for the prevention of osteoporosis found that the vitamin decreases vertebral fractures and may decrease nonvertebral fractures. A similar analysis of the effect of vitamin D on falls indicated that supplementation with vitamin D reduces the risk of falls among ambulatory or institutionalized older individuals with stable health by more than 20%.[871]
Remember the days when 400 IU of Vitamin D was the daily limit? “Currently, the Institute of Medicine says 600 IU of vitamin D per day is ‘adequate’ for men and women 71 or older.”[872] The IOM recommends 400 IU for those who are 51 to 70 years of age, and 200 IU for those 19 to 50 years old.[873] “The Women's Health Initiative study did report a small increase in kidney stones in postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years whose daily vitamin D3 intake was 400 IU (the reference intake for 50 to 70 years, and below the reference intake for >70 years) combined with 1000 mg calcium. The increase in renal stones corresponded to 5.7 events per 10,000 person-years of exposure. The women in this trial had higher calcium intakes than is seen in most post-menopausal women.”[874]
Now, 400-600 IU/day of Vitamin D supplement (even 1,000 IU/day) is recommended, particularly if you cannot get enough Vitamin D from 15 minutes in the winter sun in your locale. “The body makes vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. But that ability fades with age, leaving older adults [those over 70] at risk of vitamin D deficiency.”[875]
“The high melanin content in darker skin reduces the skin's ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight. It is very important for African Americans and other populations with dark-pigmented skin to consume recommended amounts of vitamin D. Some studies suggest that older adults, especially women, in these groups are at even higher risk of vitamin D deficiency. Individuals with darkly pigmented skin who are unable to get adequate sun exposure and/or consume recommended amounts of [dietary] vitamin D may benefit from a vitamin D supplement.”[876]
Low Vitamin K intake is associated with low bone mineral density in women. “Vitamin K, which is found mainly in green, leafy vegetables, likely plays one or more important roles in calcium regulation and bone formation. Low intake of the vitamin has been associated with low bone mineral density in women, but not men. Getting one or more servings per day of broccoli, Brussels spouts, dark green lettuce, collard greens, or kale should be enough to meet the daily recommended target of 120 micrograms/day for men and 90 micrograms/day for women.[877]
Some other factors cited by the Harvard School of Public Health may also help lower the risk of osteoporosis:
Take care with caffeine. Although the votes aren't all in, there is some evidence that drinking a lot of coffee - about four or more cups per day - can increase the risk of fracture. Caffeine tends to promote calcium excretion in urine.[878]
Avoid too much protein. Getting too much protein can leach calcium from your bones. As your body digests protein, it releases acids into the bloodstream, which the body neutralizes by drawing calcium from the bones. Animal protein seems to cause more of this calcium leaching than vegetable protein does.[879]
Get enough vitamin A, but not too much. Long-associated with good vision, vitamin A has also been found to direct the process of borrowing and redepositing calcium in bone. However, too much preformed vitamin A can promote fractures. Avoid vitamin supplements that have a full RDA (5,000 IU) of vitamin A as preformed vitamin A, unless prescribed by your doctor. Vitamin A in the form of beta-carotene does not increase one's fracture risk.[880]
Unwelcome weight gain is a common side-effect of menopause and andropause. “Being overweight in this age group [50-79] raises the risk of coronary artery disease, hypertension, cancer, diabetes, gallstones, and other conditions.”[881] Menopausal women and andropausal men thus become especially vulnerable to advertising that links good health with weight loss. The dairy industry is aware of your dilemma, and exploits it.
Ease of access makes dairy foods irresistible, and fattening. When you reach for dairy, such as a yogurt, you just pop the lid and eat the product. No cooking; no dishes. You might easily eat two or three yogurts, but I don’t recommend it. It’s also easy to pour yourself a glass of milk, or spoon out some ice cream, or even eat it from the package. This makes dairy highly attractive to older people on poor diets who, thus, may not have the energy to cook or do dishes. The individual 6 to 8 oz. portions of yogurt and half-pints of milk available make it simple to convince yourself your portions are small.
“Whole cow's milk is a high-fat fluid, designed by nature to turn a 60–70 lb. calf into a 300–600 lb. cow in one year.”[882] Whole milk is almost all fat. Low-fat and non-fat dairy products have other problems we have discussed.
Another benefit of calcium/Vitamin D supplementation instead of dairy for women: actual weight loss. A new study published in Archives of Internal Medicine on July 12, 2007 by Bette Cahn, DrPH, et al., “found that postmenopausal women between ages 50 and 79 were slightly, but consistently, better able to prevent weight gain than women who did not take the [calcium and vitamin D] supplements.”[883] “Some evidence exists that calcium and vitamin D and foods rich in these nutrients may have a role in effective weight management,” said Bette Caan, DrPH, a senior research scientist . . .and lead author of the new study.”[884] “The effect we observed was primarily for women whose total calcium intakes were lower than 1,200 mg per day.”[885] “Change in body weight was measured annually for an average of seven years.”[886]
“Weight loss and prevention of weight gain can have significant health benefits for middle-aged women. But these benefits are not going to come from supplements alone.”[887] Dr. Caan said, “Caloric restriction and daily physical activity should still be considered the basic tenets of weight management.”[888]
Source: Bette Caan, DrPH, et al., Senior Women: Calcium with Vitamin D May Prevent Weight Gain,” Archives of Internal Medicine 167:893–902, July 12, 2007.
Milk is linked to anemia. Amy Lanou, Ph.D., the nutrition director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), reports, “[M]ilk has been linked to . . . anemia." [889]
Benefits of giving up animal protein. “Almost immediately upon adopting a plant-based diet, many people report increased energy levels, enhanced spirituality and deeper connection with all living beings, weight/cellulite loss, reduction in illness (colds, flus), and improved bodily functions.” [890] “[D]iets rich in protein, particularly animal protein, encourage calcium loss.”[891]
A study published in 2001, found that "elderly women with a high dietary ratio of animal to vegetable protein intake have more rapid neck bone loss and a greater risk of hip fracture than do those with a low ratio. This suggests that an increase in vegetable protein intake and a decrease in animal protein intake may decrease bone loss..."[892] Several studies have found that "in comparison with animal protein, soy protein decreases calcium excretion, a result of the lower sulfur amino acid content of soy protein."[893]
(“To prevent osteoporosis it is also important to get enough Vitamin D, avoid smoking and limit coffee and alcohol. Weight-bearing exercise such as running, dancing and walking is especially helpful.”[894])
“Not only is going veg the most powerful and immediate thing you can do to help animals killed for food, adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet also helps eliminate obesity, illness, and disease.”[895] “Ninety-five to 99 percent of toxic chemical residues in the American diet come from animal sources.” [896] Changing dietary protein sources from animal sources to plant sources has been shown to reduce serum IGF-I concentrations.[897]
“And going veg helps the environment and planet too, since factory farms consume incredible amounts of natural resources and contribute greatly to air, water and land pollution.[898]
Elevated cancer-related hormones associated with dairy and animal protein consumption.
“A study recently published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that elevated insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) levels were positively associated with the consumption of protein (mainly from animal sources), milk, cheese, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, and vitamins B2 and B6. The study examined 2,109 women from eight European countries who had been subjects in a preceding breast cancer study (the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition). Inverse relationships were found between IGF-I levels and the intake of vegetables and beta-carotene (found in orange-colored fruits and vegetables as well as dark leafy greens). Previous evidence has revealed that elevated IGF-I levels are associated with a variety of cancers, including colorectal, prostate, and pre-menopausal breast cancer.”[899]
Vegetables can offer you a longer life. “A vegetarian diet may confer an additional 1-2 years of life (at least among US Adventists),” according to Paul Appleby, Secretary of Oxford Vegetarians of Oxford, England, UK. “It is often claimed that vegetarians enjoy greater longevity than non-vegetarians. Is there any truth in this claim?”[900]
“[A]nalysis of data from the Adventist Health Study which predicted life expectancy in Seventh-day Adventists following different behaviour patterns” offers a “positive outcome for vegetarians.”[901] “The researchers found that a combination of different lifestyle choices could influence life expectancy by as much as 10 years. Among the lifestyle choices investigated, a vegetarian diet was estimated to confer an extra 1½ to 2 years of life. The researchers concluded that "the life expectancies of California Adventist men and women are higher than those of any other well-described natural population" at 78.5 years for men and 82.3 years for women. The estimated life expectancies of vegetarian California Adventists were 80.2 years for men and 84.8 years for women. Other beneficial lifestyle choices included high nut consumption and a high level of exercise.”[902]
Bacterial contamination of raw and pasteurized milk still occurs. “Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, [Listeria (cited earlier in cheese), campylobacter], 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!”[903] There have recently been a number of cases of E.coli (raw milk), Salmonella (raw milk), and listeriosis (cheese, raw milk, and pasteurized milk) in the news.[904] That'll be a way to revive good old brucellosis again.” [905] “All cows’ milk contains blood!”[906]
Mad Cow Disease can be contracted through contaminated milk. “On Sunday, February 17, 2008, agriculture officials “ordered the recall of an unprecedented 143 million pounds of ground meat from illegally slaughtered downed dairy cows at a Chino, California slaughter plant. The government took action after The Humane Society of the United States provided videotaped evidence and a detailed report of their undercover investigation of animal cruelty at the plant to state and federal officials.”[907]
“Animals unable to stand on their own, called downer cows, that had passed a veterinary inspection but were not walking before slaughter, were processed at the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company in an inhumane manner, the videotape shows. Injured animals were beaten and prodded, and a fork lift was used to shove living downer cows onto the killing floor, contrary to California law.”[908]
“The danger is mad cow disease, or BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Inability to walk is a sign of an advanced stage of mad cow disease, so U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations forbid the processing of downer cows into the human food chain. Dr. Richard Raymond, USDA under secretary for food safety said at a hastily called news conference . . ., ‘There is a remote probability that the recalled beef products could cause adverse health effects if consumed.’”[909]
“Evidence of cruelty provided on the HSUS videotape includes:
“San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos charged the two former Hallmark/Westland employees with felony anti-cruelty. One “is charged with five felony counts under California's anti-cruelty statute and three misdemeanor counts alleging the use of a mechanical device to move ‘downer’ cows, those unable to stand on their own. Convictions on the felony charges could bring a sentence up to 15 years in prison and $100,000 in fines, plus additional penalties on the misdemeanor charges. The second worker. . ., was charged with three misdemeanors involving downers. He faces up to 18 months in jail and $3,000 in fines if convicted.”[911]
"’I need the public to understand that my office takes all cases involving animal cruelty very seriously," Ramos said in a statement. "It doesn't matter whether the mistreated animal is a beloved family pet or a cow at a slaughterhouse. Unnecessary cruelty will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.’"[912]
“It is possible that some of the meat from the illegally slaughtered downer cows was used in school lunch and other government supported food programs, Schafer said.”[913]
"’Upon notification of possible violations of USDA regulations, we immediately began an investigation and placed products from this plant destined for the National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations on hold,’ the secretary said. The products destined for the federal food assistance programs ‘will be removed from schools and other holding facilities and destroyed,’ he said.”[914]
“On February 3,[2008] Steve Mendell [the president of the slaughterhouse] said, ‘I proudly assure our customers that we comply with all USDA requirements, including the requirement that only ambulatory livestock may enter the harvest facility to be processed for human food. I am confident that we have met this high regulatory standard.’"[915]
“The Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company remains suspended by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. Pacelle of the Humane Society says that in the long term the federal government must assure both the integrity of food and the humane treatment of animals at all slaughter plants. ‘A recall of this staggering scale proves that it's past time for Congress and the USDA to strengthen our laws for the sake of people and animals.’”[916]
“[F]ears about "mad cow" disease and other ailments affecting the commercial livestock industry are fueling growing consumer” concern.[917] The historical city of Oxford, England gives us the Oxford Vegetarians/International Vegetarian Union. “Health concerns are the principal reason for reducing dairy food intake, with smaller numbers citing lactose intolerance, [bad] taste and concern for animals as their reason for cutting back. 38% of those surveyed were worried about the possibility of contracting nvCJD (the deadly human brain disease linked to the consumption of meat from BSE-infected cattle) from eating dairy products.”[918]
Do not substitute hormone replacement therapy for dairy foods to prevent osteoporosis, Harvard warns. Synthetic “hormone replacement therapy has fallen from grace as the mainstay for preventing osteoporosis after results from several studies showed that it increased the risk of heart disease, stroke, and blood clots,”[919] per Harvard School of Public Health.
Breast cancer (and prostate cancer and testicular cancer) prevention includes No-Dairy nutrition. Two current articles that feature no-dairy nutrition are Peggy Gannon’s, “Breast Cancer: A Preventable Disease Through Good Nutrition,” which appeared on February 11, 2008 in American Chronicle; and Mary Laredo’s “A Holistic Strategy Against Cancer,” of Feb 26, 2008, also in American Chronicle; both articles are reprinted from www.naturalnews.com.
Gannon recommends the book, The No-Dairy Breast Cancer Prevention Program by Professor Jane Plant, Ph.D., a chemist, whose no-dairy program is “endorsed by eminent scientists,”[920] such as Professor T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., of Cornell University, and by John McDougall, M.D.[921] (New York, St. Martin’s Press).[922] Laredo cites Plant, and says, “Dairy and all mucus-forming foods should be avoided.”[923]
In China, breast cancer is called "Rich Peoples Disease," since only the rich can afford dairy. Professor Plant says, “I have observed in my research that much of the data about prostate cancer leads to similar conclusions. According to figures from the World Health Organisation, the number of men contracting prostate cancer in rural China is negligible, only 0.5 men in every 100,000. In England, Scotland and Wales, however, this figure is 70 times higher. Like breast cancer, it is a middle-class disease that primarily attacks the wealthier and higher socio-economic groups — those that can afford to eat rich foods.”[924]
Testicular cancer linked to cheese consumption.
“Testicular cancer is among the most common cancers in men between 20 and 45 years of age. A study from the University of Ottawa shows that a high intake of dairy products, particularly cheese, as well as baked goods and luncheon meats, may contribute to its development. Researchers collected data from 601 testicular cancer cases and 744 population-based controls from eight Canadian provinces between 1994 and 1997, examining nutrients, food groups, and particular foods using food-frequency questionnaires. It is suspected that female sex hormones found in dairy products could play a role.” [925]
Source: M.J. Garner, N.J. Birkett, K.C. Johnson, B. Shatenstein, P. Ghadirian, D. Krewski. Dietary risk factors for testicular carcinoma. Int J Cancer 106:934-41, 2003.
Harvard warns of “possible increased risk of prostate cancer” from calcium/dairy. The Harvard School of Public Health has issued the following warning on its website regarding calcium (including dairy calcium) as a risk factor for prostate cancer:
“A diet high in calcium has been implicated as a potential risk factor for prostate cancer. In a Harvard study of male health professionals, men who drank two or more glasses of milk a day were almost twice as likely to develop advanced prostate cancer as those who didn't drink milk at all. Moreover, the association appears to be with calcium itself, rather than with dairy products in general. [Compare these results with S. Rohrmann et al, Cancer Causes & Control, February 2007, in the next section, which is the prostate and dairy overview below.] “Calcium (and vitamin D) can also be ingested as a supplement. Antacids contain calcium as well. However, men may want to avoid calcium supplements for men [sic] because of questions about possible risks of prostate cancer.”[926] Clearly, although more research is needed, we cannot be confident that high milk intake is safe.” [927]
Dairy products linked to prostate cancer, overview. ”Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide, with an estimated 400,000 new cases diagnosed annually. Its incidence and mortality have been associated with milk or dairy product consumption in international and interregional correlational studies.”[928]
“Of 12 case-control studies, six found significant associations, as did five of 11 cohort studies, with relative risk of prostate cancer among those with the most frequent dairy product consumption, . . .with evidence of a dose-response relationship. Mechanisms that may explain this association include the deleterious effect of high-calcium foods on vitamin D balance, the tendency of frequent dairy intake to increase serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) concentrations, and the effect of dairy products on testosterone concentration or activity.”[929]
“Dairy product consumption has been associated with prostate cancer risk in divergent populations, ...In international and interregional correlational studies, dairy product consumption has been consistently associated with prostate cancer mortality.”[930]
“A 20-year study of prostate cancer mortality among California Seventh-day Adventists reported a dose-related increased risk of age-adjusted prostate cancer mortality with milk consumption (for >3 glasses daily; for 1-2 glasses daily, compared to <1 glass per day.)” [931]
“Dairy product consumption has also been shown to increase serum concentrations of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I)[as we have seen]. In in-vitro studies, IGF-I has mitogenic and antiapoptotic properties on prostate epithelial cells. Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-I concentrations and prostate cancer risk.”[932]
“Most dairy products contain substantial amounts of fat and are devoid of fiber, a combination that is likely to increase serum testosterone concentration and activity, with a mitogenic effect on prostate tissue. However, several studies have found an association of dairy product intake with prostate cancer incidence and mortality that is independent of total fat intake and other dietary variables.”[933]
“Generally speaking, diets high in animal products are associated with higher risk, while those rich in plant foods, particularly tomatoes, are associated with reduced risk. Daily soymilk consumption was associated with a significant reduction in prostate cancer risk in a cohort of 13,855 Seventh-Day Adventist men, compared with those never drinking soymilk. Isoflavones in soymilk inhibit growth of human prostate cancer cells and also inhibit 5a-reductase, an enzyme that converts testosterone to 5a-dihydrotestosterone in the prostate. A similar beneficial effect was demonstrated for tofu consumption. Based on experience with a case-control study in Athens, Greece, researchers calculated that the combined effect of reducing dairy consumption, substituting olive oil for other added fats, and increasing tomato intake to the levels consumed by those in the lowest risk categories could reduce prostate cancer risk in their population by 41 percent.[934]
Conclusions: “In conclusion, several lines of evidence indicate that consumption of dairy products is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Evidence from international, case-control, and cohort studies suggests that men who avoid dairy products are at lower risk for prostate cancer incidence and mortality, compared with others.[935]
The article “Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physician's Health Study” by J.M. Chan, M.J. Stampfer, J. Ma, et al. was presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. “A long-term [Harvard University Medical School/Public Health and Northwestern University Medical School] study suggests an association between consumption of dairy products and the risk of prostate cancer. Researchers tracked more than 20,000 male physicians for 11 years and found a moderate elevation in prostate cancer risk associated with higher intake of five dairy products, including milk, cheese, and ice cream.”[936]
“Background: A high calcium intake, mainly from dairy products, may increase prostate cancer risk by lowering concentrations of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) [1,25(OH)(2)D(3)], a hormone thought to protect against prostate cancer.”[937]
[Results:] “Men who drank more than six glasses of milk per week had lower levels of vitamin D, which has been shown to protect the prostate. Milk-drinking also raises the amount of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) in the blood, which [as we know] is linked to cancer risk.”[938]
“Conclusions: These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer.”[939]
Source: J.M. Chan, M.J. Stampfer, J. Ma, P.H. Gann, J.M. Gaziano, E.L. Giovannucci, Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study, Am J Clin Nutr. 74(4):549-54, October 2001
The February 18, 2007 Cancer Causes & Control journal published “Meat and dairy consumption and subsequent risk of prostate cancer in a U.S. cohort study” by S. Rohrmann, E.A. Platz, C.J. Kavanaugh, et al of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The authors’ objective was “to evaluate the association of meat and dairy food consumption with subsequent risk of prostate cancer.”[940] The researchers concluded, “Higher intake of dairy foods but not calcium was positively associated with prostate cancer.”[941]
Source: S. Rohrmann, E.A. Platz , C.J. Kavanaugh , L. Thuita , S.C. Hoffman , K.J. Helzlsouer, Meat and dairy consumption and subsequent risk of prostate cancer in a US cohort study, Cancer Causes & Control. 18(1):41-50, February 2007
Nonfat milk and lowfat milk are linked to prostate cancer. On January 2, 2008, Reuters Health released results of research on prostate cancer from the American Journal of Epidemiology. “The amount of calcium and vitamin D in the diet appears to have little or no impact on the risk of prostate cancer, but the consumption of low-fat or nonfat milk may increase the risk of the malignancy, according to the results of two studies published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.” [942]
“Dietary calcium and dairy products have been thought to increase the risk of prostate cancer by affecting vitamin D metabolism. Data from several prospective studies have supported an association, but many other studies have failed to establish a link. To explore this topic further, Dr. Song-Yi Park, from the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, and colleagues, analyzed data from subjects enrolled in the Multiethnic Cohort Study. This study, conducted between 1993 and 2002, included adults between 45 and 75 years old, who were primarily from five different ethnic or racial groups, and lived in California or Hawaii.”[943]
“A total of 82,483 men from the study completed a quantitative food frequency questionnaire and various factors, such as weight, smoking status, and education levels were also noted, Park's group said. During an average follow-up period of 8 years, 4,404 men developed prostate cancer. There was no evidence that calcium or vitamin D from any source increased the risk of prostate cancer. This held true across all racial and ethnic groups.”[944] ”[L]ow-fat or nonfat milk did increase the risk of localized tumors or non-aggressive tumors.”[945]
“In a similar analysis, Dr. Yikyung Park, from the National Cancer Institute at National Institutes (NIH) of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues investigated the relationship of calcium and vitamin D and prostate cancer in 293,888 men enrolled in the NIH-American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study, conducted between 1995 and 2001. The average follow-up period was 6 years.”[946]
“No link between total or supplemental dietary calcium and the total number of non-advanced prostate cancer cases was noted. Total calcium intake was tied to advanced and fatal disease, but both associations fell short of statistical significance.”[947]
“Similar to the first study's findings, skim milk was linked with advanced prostate cancer. Calcium from non-dairy food, by contrast, was tied to a reduced risk of non-advanced prostate cancer.”[948]
On December 1, 2007, the American Journal of Epidemiology published, “Calcium, dairy foods, and risk of incident and fatal prostate cancer: the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study,” by Y. Park, P.N. Mitrou, V. Kipnis et al, referred to above. Here are additional details.
“Skim milk, but not other dairy foods, was associated with increased risk of advanced prostate cancer (> or = 2 vs. zero servings/day). In contrast, calcium from nondairy foods was associated with lower risk of nonadvanced prostate cancer (> or = 600 vs. < 250 mg/day).”[949] “[T]he authors cannot definitively rule out a weak association [with non-skim milk dairy foods] for aggressive prostate cancer.”[950]
Source: Y. Park, P.N. Mitrou, V. Kipnis, A. Hollenbeck, A. Schatzkin, M.F. Leitzmann, Calcium, dairy foods, and risk of incident and fatal prostate cancer: the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, Am J Epidemiol. 12;166(11):1270-9, December 1, 2007; Epub Oct 12, 2007.
Dairy intake and development of colorectal cancer. In December 2007, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published “Childhood dairy intake and adult cancer risk: 65-y follow-up of the Boyd Orr cohort,” by Jolieke C. van der Pols, et al. The authors state, “Dairy consumption affects biological pathways associated with carcinogenesis. Evidence for a link between cancer risk and dairy consumption in adulthood is increasing.”[951] “We investigated whether dairy consumption in childhood is associated with cancer incidence and mortality in adulthood.”[952] The authors conclude: “A family diet rich in dairy products during childhood is associated with a greater risk of colorectal cancer in adulthood. Confirmation of possible underlying biological mechanisms is needed.”[953]
Dairy labeling controversy: you have a right to know what is in your food. A “University of Wisconsin study found that . . .94 percent [of Americans] supported mandatory labeling [of BGH-injected cows’ milk].”[954]
“The FDA, however, refuses to require that milk and dairy products from BGH-injected cows be labeled, instead leaving it to the states to decide whether to regulate labeling. The FDA's refusal to label BGH-induced milk undermines the public's right to know how food is produced and how farm animals are treated.”[955]
“The economic and political forces behind BGH have even worked to prevent the labeling of milk that is free of synthetic hormones. Monsanto has gone so far as to sue dairies that label their milk as being free of the artificial hormone.”[956] Several states “banned BGH-free labeling.”[957]
New cheese ingredients; old labels. “The Food and Drug Administration is proposing a change to the rules for labeling cheese. They want to allow cheese producers to use something called ‘ultrafiltered milk’ but list it simply as “milk” on the ingredient list.”[958]
“The problem is, ultrafiltered milk isn’t the same as milk. Ultrafiltered milk has been filtered to remove things like lactose, minerals, and vitamins. It is cheaper than fluid milk or powdered milk and that’s why the food processing industry wants to use it. They just don’t want you to know about it.”[959]
“In 2005, at the request of the dairy and food processing industries, the FDA decided to allow the use of ultrafiltered milk as an ingredient in some cheeses. Because the agency considered ultrafiltered milk to be ‘significantly different’ in composition from untreated milk, it required that ultrafiltered milk be identified as such on ingredient lists.”[960]
“This wasn't good enough for the industry, though, and now they are arguing to FDA that it is too expensive to list ultrafiltered milk separately on their labels. They also argue that, ‘milk is milk’ no matter what's been done to it, and that it is misleading to consumers to distinguish untreated milk from the ultrafiltered stuff. We know that how milk is produced and processed creates significant differences in the final product, and that consumers are smart, and have a right to know what is really in their food.”[961]
“Once again, FDA is being told that consumers don't deserve to know what's really in their food. We need to tell the FDA to protect our right to know!”[962]
Dairy Politics: What does BGH do to our farms? It shuts them down. Dairy politics seems to favor the larger corporate farms. “Rather than grazing on grass, BGH-treated cows must consume a [more expensive] highly-concentrated diet [of feed manufactured by Monsanto along with Roundup herbicide required[963] by Monsanto to accompany their feed] to keep up with increased production [imposed by Monsanto’s Posilac].[964] As a result of this Monsanto “system,” which heavily favors Monsanto financially,“[t]he most persistent economic problem faced by the dairy industry today is overproduction. Every year farmers are driven out of business because milk production far outreaches demand. The increase in milk production attributed to BGH is having devastating consequences.”[965]
“Overproduction results in economic loss for both farmers and taxpayers. This is because milk prices are artificially propped up by the government. The government sets a minimum price and then agrees to buy all of the milk products that cannot be sold.”[966]
“BGH benefits only large-scale dairy factories that, with BGH increasing their yields, can gain an advantage over other farms. But that advantage is usually only temporary [leaving, virtually, only Monsanto to benefit from BGH]. In order to compete, other dairies in the area are forced to adopt the same technology. In short, BGH triggers a pharmaceutical arms race, requiring milk producers to use more and more hormones, antibiotics, and other drugs.”[967]
“Many dairy farmers know that administering BGH will actually harm cows and make their work harder. However, some feel virtually forced to use it. According to Vermont dairy farmer Robert Baird, ‘None of us are excited about pushing our cows any harder. But if we're forced to, we will use BGH to stay in business.’"[968]
“Studies at the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment and Cornell University predicted widespread use of BGH would drive as many as 30 percent of American dairy farmers out of business. And, in fact, between 1991 and 2001, the number of dairy operations in the U.S. declined by more than 40 percent. Those on the losing end are primarily small-scale family dairy farms. These are farms which are much more inclined than corporate agribusiness to use humane, sustainable, and environmentally-sound farming practices.”[969] “Most dairy farmers opposed BGH.”[970]
“As BGH gains acceptance [by consumers], it paves the way for the use of genetically engineered growth stimulants for pigs, sheep, and other farm animals. BGH itself has already been used in experiments to produce larger, faster- growing chickens.”[971]
Boycotting genetically-engineered hormone-infused milk and milk-products (and by extension, genetically-modified crops the cows feed on) is a way to help farmers, cows, the environment, and ourselves. When we stop buying all dairy products, we may well add healthy years to our lives.
Milk is a cruel product: Please help cows! Say “No” to dairy. “There is a strong bond formed between the mother and her calf in the first few hours after birth; enforced separation is therefore a very traumatic experience for both.”[972] “Calves would naturally suckle for 6 to 12 months.”[973] “After birth, the mother and calf are permanently separated. Female calves, the future milk-producers of the dairy operation, are confined to undersized huts or crates for the first three months of their lives. With no milk-producing capabilities, male calves are raised and slaughtered for beef or veal.”[974]
“Given the chance, cows nurture their young and form lifelong friendships with one another. They play games, have a wide range of emotions, and demonstrate personality traits, such as vanity. But most cows raised for the dairy-products industry are intensively confined, leaving them unable to fulfill their most basic desires, such as nursing their calves, even for a single day. . . .While cows suffer in animal factories, humans who drink their milk increase their chances of developing heart disease, diabetes, several types of cancer, and many other ailments.”[975]
“Cows suffer on dairy farms. Cows produce milk for the same reason that humans do—-to nourish their young—-but [976] “[t]heir babies are taken away so that humans can drink the milk intended for the calves.”[977] “Some [cows] spend their entire lives standing on concrete floors; others are confined to massive, crowded lots, where they are forced to live amid their own waste. Cows have a natural lifespan of about 25 years and can produce milk for eight or nine years. However, the stress caused by the conditions in animal factories leads to disease, lameness, and reproductive problems that render cows worthless to the dairy-products industry by the time that they’re 4 or 5 years old, at which time they are sent to be slaughtered.”[978]
“In California, dairy concentrated animal feeding operations commonly confine several thousand cows on limited acreage. Cows are denied adequate protection from severe weather conditions. As well, cows are shorn of proper bedding and sanitary rest quarters.”[979]
“Mother cows on dairy farms can often be seen searching and calling for their calves long after they have been separated. Author Oliver Sacks, M.D., wrote of a visit that he and cattle expert Dr. Temple Grandin made to a dairy farm and of the great tumult of bellowing that they heard when they arrived: “‘They must have separated the calves from the cows this morning,’ Temple said, and, indeed, this was what had happened. We saw one cow outside the stockade, roaming, looking for her calf, and bellowing. ‘That’s not a happy cow,’ Temple said. ‘That’s one sad, unhappy, upset cow. She wants her baby. Bellowing for it, hunting for it. . . . It’s like grieving, mourning —- not much written about it. People don’t like to allow them [the cows] thoughts or feelings.’” [980]
Never too late. Dr. Benjamin Spock, “one of the world’s most compassionate and ethical physicians,” was “a member of PCRM’s Advisory Board” and the author of Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child Care, “a key reference for parents since it first appeared in 1946. With nearly 50 million copies in print, it has sold more than any book other than the Bible.”[981] At the age of 88, Dr. Spock “began a nondairy, low-fat diet. ‘Within two weeks,’ he writes, ‘my chronic bronchitis went away after years of unsuccessful antibiotic treatments. I know many people,’ he says, ‘who have used nutritional changes to deal successfully with very serious conditions, including heart disease and cancer.’”[982] (Consult your doctor before embarking on any health program.)
Conclusion. We talk here about cow disease, heart disease, prostate cancer, breast cancer, but “[p]eople must stop thinking of bodily systems as individual entities that are neatly divided, and think of the whole body as a system that is infinitely interconnected within itself, as well as to all matter on earth — living or otherwise. As each infinitely small part or function is disabled, we lose a little more of the viability of our species and that of all others.” [983]
Recombinant bovine growth hormone makes cows sick. When we harm innocent cows, plunder their calves and pollute their milk, our environment becomes a threat to our health. “[U]se instinct and common sense. If something seems unhealthy, most likely it is.”[984] “Modern medicine is not capable of dealing with the problems that have been created by our flagrant misuse of [corporate] science.” [985] . . .”The corporation [with a few exceptions] lives for one thing — profit. . . .Some of “[t]hose profits [may] come at the expense of society and the environment. And it's easy to see that the finely-tuned environment that we utterly depend upon [is] fading away before our eyes,”[986] in the fog of toxic rain. “One very hard fact that is typically ignored is that there are too many people doing far too much each day that disturbs the balance of nature”[987] for personal profit, causing humans and animals to suffer needlessly. Before you reach for your next glass of milk, “[u]nderstand that and do not forget it.” [988] It’s not too late to change.
Consider the aim of the Oxford Vegetarians, a group of locals in Oxford, England, “to promote the vegetarian/vegan diet for the moral, physical, environmental and economic benefit of humankind.”[989] This is, perhaps, the friendship with the world that we seek, the “milk” of human kindness that transcends “profits.”
[501]Susan Levin, M.S., R.D., Dairy Products and Bone Health, Letter to the Editor, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, January 2007; http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary070109.html
[502] Is milk a natural? TryVeg.com; http://www.tryveg.com/cfi/toc/?v=03milk; accessed on January 30, 2008
[503] Ibid.
[504] Ché Green, Not Milk: The USDA, Monsanto, and the U.S. Dairy Industry, reprinted from LiP Magazine: Informed Revolt, July 9, 2002 by Alternet; http://www.alternet.org/story/13557/; accessed on February 2, 2008
[505] Parents' Guide to Building Better Bones, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/building_bones.html
[506] Ibid.
[507] Ibid.
[508] Neal D. Barnard, Milk Consumption and Prostate Cancer, The Cancer Project webpage, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/diet/prostate_dairy.php
[509] Parents' Guide to Building Better Bones, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/building_bones.html
[510] What’s best for your bones? Harvard School of Public Health, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on January 30, 2008
[511] What’s best for your bones? Harvard School of Public Health
[512] Getting enough calcium, Harvard School of Public Health, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on January 30, 2008
[513] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge);
https://hfa.org/campaigns/dairy.html
[514] “Despite Industry Propaganda Monsanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone Still Threatens Public Health: The ‘Milk is Milk’ Industry Campaign Threatens Public Health,” Organic Consumers Association, February 4, 2005; http://www.organicconsumers.org/rBGH/milkismilk20405.cfm
[515] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge);
https://hfa.org/campaigns/dairy.html
[516] Who we are: company history, Monsanto; http://www.monsanto.com/who_we_are/history.asp; accessed on February 7, 2008
[517] The History of PCBs: When were health problems detected? Fox River Watch; http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html; accessed on February 8, 2008
[518] Toxicity Information for Aroclor [includes 1254], PAN Pesticide Database-Chemicals, Pesticide Action Network North America; http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35822; accessed on February 13, 2008
[519] Peter Montague, Pesticides In The News, Environmental Research Foundation, Bulletin #660, July 22, 1999; http://www.rachel.org/
[520] FAQ-land, PCBs, ALcontrol Laboratories, November 24, 2005; http://www.alcontrol.co.uk/faq/faq_view.asp?group=5; accessed on February 15, 2008
[521] The History of PCBs: When were health problems detected? Fox River Watch; http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html; accessed on February 8, 2008
[522] Marc Reisch, Alabama jury finds Monsanto liable: Now Solutia must pay for decades of PCB contamination in Anniston, Chemical & Engineering News, Volume 80, Number 9, March 4, 2002; http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8009/8009notw5.html; accessed on February 9, 2008
[523] The History of PCBs: When were health problems detected? Fox River Watch
[524] Marc Reisch, Alabama jury finds Monsanto liable: Now Solutia must pay for decades of PCB contamination in Anniston, Chemical & Engineering News, March 4, 2002
[525] Vince Patton, Tillamook, Milk and GMO Hormones, February 18, 2005; http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Monsanto-Posilac-rBGH18feb05.htm
[526] Brian Tokar, Monsanto: A Checkered History, reprinted from The Ecologist Sep/Oct 1998, www.mindfully.org; http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Monsanto-Checkered-HistoryOct98.htm; accessed on February 12, 2008
[527] Pfizer Statement on the Monsanto-Pharmacia Merger Announcement, Pfizer, press release(Source: Pfizer, Inc.), December 20, 1999; http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-20-1999/0001100812&EDATE=
[528]Stephanie Saul, Study Links Ambien Use to Unconscious Food Forays,The New York Times, March 14, 2006;
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/health/14sleep.html?scp=5&sq=ambien&st=nyt
[529] Editorial: Ambien in the Driver’s Seat, The New York Times, March 11, 2006;
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/opinion/11sat2.html?scp=3&sq=ambien&st=nyt
[530] David J. Morrow, SHAPING A COLOSSUS: THE DEAL; American Home Products Buying Monsanto for $34.4 Billion, The New York Times, Del.icio.us
June 2, 1998;
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E4DC143BF931A35755C0A96E958260
[531] Matt Jenkins, Brave new hay: Monsanto erases the line between what is natural and what isn’t, The Illinois Times, June 28, 2007; http://www.illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A6615
[532] David J. Morrow, SHAPING A COLOSSUS: THE DEAL; American Home Products Buying Monsanto for $34.4 Billion, The New York Times, Del.icio.us
June 2, 1998;
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E4DC143BF931A35755C0A96E958260
[533] Ibid.
[534] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge)
[535] Our Products, Agricultural Productivity,POSILAC® Bovine Somatotropin, Monsanto; http://www.monsanto.com/products/ag_productivity.asp
[536] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge)
[537] About Posilac, POSILACÒ Bovine Somatotropin by Monsanto, Monsanto website; http://www.monsantodairy.com/about/index.html; accessed on February 14, 2008
[538] Ronnie Cummins, “Ronnie Cummins: Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone Poses Significant Risks for Consumers”--(Ronnie Cummins: “Studies show synthetic hormones are a risk for humans,” Organic Consumers Association, Press of Atlantic City, NJ, January 24, 2008; http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9902.cfm
[539] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge)
[540] Ibid.
[542] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge)
[543] Ibid.
[544] Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels, Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients. New York: Nation Books, 2005, p. ix, hardcover
[545] Got allergies and mucus? PETA, milksucks.com; http://www.milksucks.com/mucus.asp
[546] David B. Deserano, M.S., Information Control for Social Manipulation, extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 2 (February-March 2004), www.nexusmagazine.com; http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/InformationControl.html; accessed on February 14, 2008
[547] “Dr. Mercola’s Comment” refers to Horm Res 2000;53:53-67, regarding Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, Milk and the Cancer Connection, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 10, 2000; http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/10/milk_cancer.htm
[548]Diabetic nephropathy, MedlinePlus Encyclopedia, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, updated November 30, 2006; http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000494.htm
[549] “Despite Industry Propaganda Monsanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone Still Threatens Public Health: The "Milk is Milk" Industry Campaign Threatens Public Health,” Organic Consumers Association, February 4, 2005; http://www.organicconsumers.org/rBGH/milkismilk20405.cfm
[550] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge);
https://hfa.org/campaigns/dairy.html
[551] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge);
https://hfa.org/campaigns/dairy.html
[552] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge);
https://hfa.org/campaigns/dairy.html
[553] Keeping Milk Safe: Canada Bans BST, News in Review, Canadian Broadcasting Company, March 1999, http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/mar99/milk/intro.htm
[554] Brian Tokar, Monsanto: A Checkered History, reprinted from The Ecologist Sep/Oct 1998, www.mindfully.org; http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Monsanto-Checkered-HistoryOct98.htm; accessed on February 12, 2008
[555] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge)
[556] Ibid.
[557] Ibid.
[558] John Robbins, The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Heal the World, Foreword by Dean Ornish, M.D. (Newburyport, MA: Conari Press, 2001), 345
[559] Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D., product description, Samuel Epstein, The Politics of Cancer Revisited, East Ridge Press, 1998, Amazon.com; http://www.amazon.ca/; accessed on February 24, 2008
[560] Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D., product description, Samuel Epstein, The Politics of Cancer Revisited, East Ridge Press, 1998,(“This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.”) Amazon.com; http://www.amazon.ca/; accessed on February 24, 2008
[561] Samuel Epstein, M.D., The Politics of Cancer Revisited, Introduction by Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Foreword by Congressman David Obey (Fremont Center, NY: East Ridge Press,1998), 617.
[562] Martha Rosenberg, We're drinking WHAT? U.S. consumers reject milk adulterated with Monsanto's rBST
Nov 20, 2006, last updated on Jan 4th, 2007; http://onlinejournal.com/; accessed on February 26, 2008
[563] Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, Milk and the Cancer Connection, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 10, 2000; http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/10/milk_cancer.htm
[564] Ibid.
[565] Ibid.
[566] Ibid.
[567] Ibid.
[568] Cancer Prevention Coalition, What’s In Your Milk? by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., review, 2006; http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/WhatsInYourMilkRelease.htm
[569] Cancer Prevention Coalition, What’s In Your Milk? by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., review, 2006; http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/WhatsInYourMilkRelease.htm
[570] Cancer Prevention Coalition, What’s In Your Milk? by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., review, 2006; http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/WhatsInYourMilkRelease.htm
[571] Cancer Prevention Coalition, What’s In Your Milk? by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., review, 2006; http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/WhatsInYourMilkRelease.htm
[572] Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, Milk and the Cancer Connection, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 10, 2000; http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/10/milk_cancer.htm
[573] Cattle, The Vegetarian Society of the United Kingdom; http://ww w.vegsoc.org/info/cattle.html
[574] Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, Milk and the Cancer Connection, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 10, 2000
[575] Ibid.
[576] Paul Goettlich, plastics expert, What are Endocrine Disruptors?, Mindfully.org, rev. August 8, 2006; http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/EDs-PWG-16jun01.htm
[577] Paul Goettlich, RoundupÒ: A Product of el Diablo, Mindfully.org, May 25, 2003; http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Roundup-El-Diablo25may03.htm
[578] Jan Lundberg, Plastics: Your Formidable Enemy, Culture Change e-Letter #70, Questioning exposure, recycling,biodegradability, alternatives, Culture Change/Sustainable Energy Institute; http://www.culturechange.org/e-letter-plastics_enemy.html; accessed on February 18, 2008
[579] Pr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, press release on toxic effects of Roundup Herbicide on humans, environment (based on Sophie Richard, Safa Moslemi, Herbert Sipahutar, Nora Benachour, Gilles-Eric Seralini, Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives;
doi:10.1289/ehp.7728; http://dx.doi.org/; published online February 24, 2005); reprinted by Third World Network Biosafety Information Service, TWN (Third World Network), April 7, 2005; http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service185.htm
[580] Ibid.
[581] Ibid.
[582] Ibid.
[583] Paul Goettlich, RoundupÒ: A Product of el Diablo, Mindfully.org, May 25, 2003
[584] Karen Hoffman, Roundup highly lethal to amphibians, finds University of Pittsburgh Researcher, press release, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, April 1, 2005; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/uopm-rhl040105.php
[585] Herve Morin, Roundup Doesn't Poison Only Weeds (translated from the French),Le Monde, March 12, 2005, reprinted on Truthout.org;
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032805HB.shtml
[588] Robert M. Kradjian, M.D., Breast Surgery Chief, Division of General Surgery, Seton Medical Centre, Daly City, CA, Don't Get Milk, Dr. Mercola’s Comments, Dr. Joseph Mercola, 1999;
http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/dont_get_milk.htm
[589] Dr. Mercola’s comment on Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, The Mystery in Your Milk, Dr. Joseph Mercola, reprinted from Earth Island Journal vol. 16, no. 2, Summer 2001; http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/26/mystery_milk.htm
[590] Matt Jenkins, Brave new hay: Monsanto erases the line between what is natural and what isn’t, The Illinois Times, June 28, 2007; http://www.illinoistimes.com/
[591] Ibid.
[592] Ibid.
[593] Ibid.
[594] Ibid.
[595] Ibid.
[596] Ibid.
[597] Ibid.
[598] Ibid.
[599] Ibid.
[600] Ibid.
[601] Ibid.
[602] Ibid.
[603] Ibid.
[604] Ibid.
[605] Ibid.
[607] Peter Montague, Pesticides In The News, Environmental Research Foundation, Bulletin #660, July 22, 1999; http://www.rachel.org/
[608] Ibid.
[609] Ibid.
[610] Ibid.
[611] The benefits of dairy foods in health promotion, National Dairy Council,
http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/NationalDairyCouncil/Health/Digest/dcd75-3Page2.htm; accessed on January 30, 2008
[612] Health Concerns about Dairy Products, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/dairy.html
[613] Health Concerns about Dairy Products, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/dairy.html
[614] Robert Cohen, Executive Director, Dairy Education Board, Behold the Power of Pus, Dairy Education Board, sponsor of notmilk.com;
http://www.notmilk.com/forum/777.html; accessed on February 2, 2008
[615] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[616] Human Health/Diet, Delaware Action for Animals; http://www.da4a.org/health.htm
[617]Robert Cohen, Behold the Power of Antibiotics, Dairy Education Board, sponsor of notmilk.com;
http://www.notmilk.com/forum/777.html; accessed on February 2, 2008
[618] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge);
https://hfa.org/campaigns/dairy.html
[619] Ibid.
[620] Ibid.
[621] Ibid.
[622] Health Concerns about Dairy Products, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/dairy.html
[623] Robert Cohen, Behold the Power of Hormones, Dairy Education Board, sponsor of notmilk.com;
http://www.notmilk.com/forum/777.html; accessed on February 2, 2008
[624] Neal D. Barnard, M.D., Big Food About to Lose Its Biggest Defense: Food Really Is Addictive, May 19, 2003
[625] Nanci Hellmich, Got milk — and got controversy, USA TODAY, March 8, 2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-08-got-milk_x.htm
[626] Ibid.
[627] Ibid.
[628] Ibid.
[629] Ibid.
[630] Doctors Group Files Suit against Kraft, General Mills, Dannon, and Dairy Trade Groups for False Dairy Weight-Loss Claims: Suit Seeks Immediate Stop to National Advertising Campaign, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine News Release, June 28, 2005, http://www.pcrm.org/cgi-bin/lists/mail.cgi?flavor=archive&id=20050628100850&list=news
[631] Ibid.
[632] Ibid.
[633] Ibid.
[634] Ibid.
[635] Ibid.
[636]Healthy Weight with Dairy, Healthy Weight Tips,National Dairy Council, http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/nationaldairycouncil/healthyweight
[637] Neal D. Barnard, M.D., Weight-Loss Ads Are Big Dairy’s Latest Way to Trick Consumers, AgWeek, Aug. 15, 2005; http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary050908_dairy.html
[638] Ibid.
[639] Natalie Boero, All the News that’s Fat to Print: The American “Obesity Epidemic” and the Media, Qualitative Sociology Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 41-60, March 2007; published online September 7, 2006; http://www.springerlink.com/content/k72481766376k5x1/fulltext.html
[640] Stuart Elliott, Milk mustaches jump off the page and onto the side of buildings, The New York Times, October 4, 1996;
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E5D9123FF937A35753C1A960958260
[641] Nanci Hellmich, Got milk — and got controversy, USA TODAY, March 8, 2006; http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-08-got-milk_x.htm
[642] Kim Severson, Dairy Council to End Ad Campaign That Linked Drinking Milk With Weight Loss, The New York Times, May 11, 2007; http://www.nytimes.com
[643] Ibid.
[644] Kim Severson, Dairy Council to End Ad Campaign That Linked Drinking Milk With Weight Loss, The New York Times, May 11, 2007; http://www.nytimes.com
[645] Kim Severson, Dairy Council to End Ad Campaign That Linked Drinking Milk With Weight Loss, The New York Times, May 11, 2007; http://www.nytimes.com
[646] USDA and Dairy Industry Halt Misleading Weight-Loss Ads After Physicians Group Complains to Federal Trade Commission, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine News Release, May 11, 2007, http://www.pcrm.org/news/release070511.html
[647] Ibid.
[648] Ibid.
[649] Ibid.
[650]NDC and IDFA Statement in Response to FTC Comments on Weight Loss Campaigns, National Dairy Council, May 11, 2007
http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/NationalDairyCouncil/Press/Alert/Alert2007/NDCandIDFAStatementinResponsetoFTCCommentsonWeightLossCampaigns.htm
[651] Ibid.
[652] Obesity Growing to Be Top Cancer Cause, AP, The New York Times, February 15, 2008; http://www.nytimes.com
[653] Ibid.
[654] Ibid.
[655] Ibid.
[656] Sam Roberts, Fattest People on Planet? Americans Take the Cake, CommonDreams.org, December 15, 2006; http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1215-09.htm
[657] Larsson SC, Wolk A, "Excess body fatness: an important cause of most cancers" Lancet 2008; 371: 536-537.
[658] Chantal Britt, Obesity Raises Cancer Risk, Extending Dangers of Fat (Update 1), Bloomberg, February 15, 2008; http://www.bloomberg.com
[659] Chantal Britt, Obesity Raises Cancer Risk, Extending Dangers of Fat (Update 1), Bloomberg, February 15, 2008
[660] Ibid.
[661] Ibid.
[662] A.G. Renehan, et al "Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies" Lancet 2008; 371:569-578.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360860269X/abstract
[663] Michael Kahn (reporter), editing by Maggie Fox and Richard Williams, British Researchers Link Obesity to More Cancers, Reuters, The New York Times, February 14, 2008; http://www.nytimes.com
[664] Ibid.
[665] Chantal Britt, Obesity Raises Cancer Risk, Extending Dangers of Fat (Update 1), Bloomberg, February 15, 2008
[666] Michael Kahn (reporter), editing by Maggie Fox and Richard Williams, British Researchers Link Obesity to More Cancers, Reuters, The New York Times, February 14, 2008; http://www.nytimes.com
[667] Michael Kahn (reporter), editing by Maggie Fox and Richard Williams, British Researchers Link Obesity to More Cancers, Reuters, The New York Times, February 14, 2008
[668] Ibid.
[669] Michael Kahn, British Researchers Link Obesity to More Cancers, Reuters, The New York Times, February 14, 2008; http://www.nytimes.com
[670] Being Overweight May Increase Cancer Risk, AP, The New York Times, February 14, 2008; http://www.nytimes.com
[671] Ibid.
[672] Ibid.
[673] Ibid.
[674] Ibid.
[676] Being Overweight May Increase Cancer Risk, AP, The New York Times, February 14, 2008
[677] Being Overweight May Increase Cancer Risk, AP, The New York Times, February 14, 2008
[678] Got Fat? Milksucks.com, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, http://www.milksucks.com/fat.asp
[679] Ibid.
[680] Ibid.
[681] Neal Barnard, Women and Cancer: Opportunities for Prevention, The Cancer Project webpage, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/type/women.php
[682] Ibid.
[683] Ibid.
[684] Ibid.
[685] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge);
https://hfa.org/campaigns/dairy.html
[686] Andrew G Renehan, PhD, Marcel Zwahlen, PhD, Christoph Minder, PhD, Sarah T O'Dwyer MD, Stephen M. Shalet, MD, Matthias Egger MD, Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and cancer risk: systematic review and meta-regression analysis, The Lancet 363:1346-1353, 2004; http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604160443/abstract
[687] Andrew G. Renehan, Jan Frystyk and Allan Flyvbjerg, Obesity and cancer risk: the role of the insulin-IGF axis, Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol. 17, Issue 8, pages 328-336, October 2006 (available online September 7, 2006); abstract reprinted in ScienceDirect(Elsevier). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science
[688] Skip Spitzer, In Biotech We Trust? Having Faith in the Companies That Genetically Engineer Our Food , A Pesticide Action Network North America/Genetically Engineered Food Alert backgrounder; http://www.gefoodalert.org; accessed on February 11, 2008
[689] Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, Milk and the Cancer Connection, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 10, 2000; http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/10/milk_cancer.htm
[690] Ronnie Cummins, “Ronnie Cummins: Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone Poses Significant Risks for Consumers”--(Ronnie Cummins: “Studies show synthetic hormones are a risk for humans,” Organic Consumers Association, Press of Atlantic City, NJ, January 24, 2008; http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9902.cfm
[691] Paul Appleby, Milk - Nature's Perfect Food?, The Oven, October 1998) http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Publications/Oven/Articles_General/milk.html
[692] Ibid.
[693] Martha Rosenberg, We're drinking WHAT? U.S. consumers reject milk adulterated with Monsanto's rBST, (quoting New York Times of November 9, 2005 on IGF-1 and cancer), Nov 20, 2006, last updated on Jan 4th, 2007; http://onlinejournal.com/; accessed on February 26, 2008
[694] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[695] Ibid.
[696] Gary Bushkin,Ph.D., CNC Estitta Bushkin, Ph.D., CNC, Uh-Oh. Osteo, Better Nutrition, January 2000;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKA/is_1_62/ai_61397506
[697] Robert M. Kradjian, M.D., Breast Surgery Chief, Division of General Surgery, Seton Medical Centre, Daly City, CA, Don't Get Milk, Dr. Mercola’s Comments, Dr. Joseph Mercola, 1999;
http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/dont_get_milk.htm
[698] MEDICAL NEWS- Milk Slows Recovery from Bowel Surgery, Good Medicine Magazine, Volume VIII, Number 3, Summer 1999; http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM99Summer/GM99Summer11.html
[699] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110
[700] S.C. Larsson, L. Bergkvist, A. Wolk, (Abstract) Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Am J Clin Nutr 80(5):1353-7, Nov 2004.
[701] Milk Linked to Ovarian Cancer: U.S. Experts Issue Recommendation Based on New Swedish Study, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine News Release, August 9, 2005, http://www.pcrm.org
[702] Milk Linked to Ovarian Cancer: U.S. Experts Issue Recommendation Based on New Swedish Study, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine News Release, August 9, 2005, http://www.pcrm.org
[703] Milk Linked to Ovarian Cancer: U.S. Experts Issue Recommendation Based on New Swedish Study, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine News Release, August 9, 2005, http://www.pcrm.org
[704] Consumption of Dairy Products Increases Ovarian Cancer Risk, The Cancer Project; http://www.cancerproject.org/
[705] Susanna C. Larsson, Nicola Orsini, Alicja Wolk, (Abstract) Milk, milk products and lactose intake and ovarian cancer risk: A meta-analysis of epidemiological studies;
Int J Cancer. Volume 118, Issue 2 , Pages 431–441, 2005
[706] Dairy Products Increase Ovarian Cancer Risk, The Cancer Project News, Spring 2006, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/type/ovarian/dairy.php
[707] Ibid.
[708] Neal Barnard, Women and Cancer: Opportunities for Prevention, The Cancer Project webpage, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/type/women.php
[709] Neal Barnard, Women and Cancer: Opportunities for Prevention, The Cancer Project webpage, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/type/women.php
[710] Nicholas Bakalar, Obesity Is Found to Make Ovarian Cancer Deadlier, The New York Times, August 29, 2006;
http://www.nytimes.com
[711] Ibid.
[712] Ibid.
[714] Robert Cohen, Is Milk Addictive?, Animals In Print: The On-Line Newsletter, May 6, 2005
[715] Ibid.
[716] Judy Putnam, Jane Allshouse, Trends in U.S. Per Capita consumption of Dairy Products, 1909 to 2001, Amber Waves, Vol. 1, Issue 3, June 2003; http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/June03/pdf/awjune2003datafeature.pdf
[717] Ibid.
[718] Neal D. Barnard, M.D., Big Food About to Lose Its Biggest Defense: Food Really Is Addictive, reprinted from The Record (Bergen County, N.J.) under the headline “Food Processors Lose Their Best Defense”, May 19, 2003; http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary030519.html
[719] Neal D. Barnard, M.D., Big Food About to Lose Its Biggest Defense: Food Really Is Addictive , reprinted from The Record (Bergen County, N.J.) under the headline “Food Processors Lose Their Best Defense”, May 19, 2003; http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary030519.html
[720] Ibid.
[721] Ibid.
[722] Ibid.
[723] Francesca Lyman, More reasons to avoid milk, Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 1, 2001; http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/11/milk.htm
[724] Meg Marco, Organic milk is off the menu at Starbucks starting Feb. 26, The Consumerist, January 16, 2008;http://consumerist.com/345688/organic-milk-is-off-the-menu-at-starbucks-starting-feb-26
[725] Ibid.
[726] The Geography of Multiple Sclerosis, The Multiple Sclerosis Information Trust, last modified January 21, 2008 http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/facts.html
[727] D. Malosse, H. Perron, A. Sasco, J.M. Seigneurin, Correlation between milk and dairy product consumption and multiple sclerosis prevalence: a worldwide study, Neuroepidemiology 11(4-6):304-12, 1992; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1291895; accessed on February 17, 2008
[728] Robert Cohen, Scientific Proof: Milk causes autism & ADD, Notmilk.com; http://www.notmilk.com/aa.html
[729] Robert Cohen, Scientific Proof: Milk causes autism & ADD, Notmilk.com
[730] Ibid.
[731] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005; http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[732] Acne Associated with Dairy Intake,Good Medicine Magazine, Volume XIV, Number 3, Summer 2005; http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm05summer/latest_in.html
[733] Jeff Chirico, Treating Adult Acne, PAHomepage.com, February 6, 2008; http://pahomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=23545
[734] Ibid.
[736] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[737] Peter Cowie, "Katharine Hepburn,” in Films and Filming (London), June 1963
[738] Katharine Hepburn, Me: Stories of My Life (New York: Random House/Ballantine,1991)
[739] Milk Consumption May Pose Risk Factor for Parkinson’s, Good Medicine Magazine, Volume XIV, Number 3; Summer 2005; http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm05summer/latest_in.html
[740] Ibid.
[741] Dairy intake tied to Parkinson’s disease in men, Reuters, updated 2:45 p.m. ET April 19, 2007; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
[742] Ibid.
[743] Ibid.
[744] Ibid.
[745] Ibid.
[746] Ibid.
[747] Glaucoma, University of Maryland Medical Center, August 6, 2006; http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/glaucoma-000069.htm
[748] Ibid.
[749] Ibid.
[750] Reminder -- Extra-Label Use of Sulfonamides in Lactating Dairy Cattle Prohibited, FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Communications Staff, HFV-12, Rockville, MD, August 19, 2005;
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/sulfapro.htm; web page updated August 22, 2005
[751] Leukemia virus in milk, originally published by Robert Cohen at http://www.notmilk.com, reprinted by Alkalize for Health, 2002; http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/
[752] Ibid.
[753] Ibid.
[754] Ibid.
[755] Ibid.
[756] Ibid.
[757] Ibid.
[758] "migraine." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/migraine>
[759] Tamar Nordenberg, Heading Off Migraine Pain, U.S.Food & Drug Administration; http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/features/1998/398_pain.html; accessed on February 11, 2008
[760] Diet and Headache, National Headache Foundation; http://www.headaches.org/consumer/topicsheets/diet_headache.html; accessed on February 15, 2008
[761] Ibid.
[762] Tamar Nordenberg, Heading Off Migraine Pain, U.S. Food & Drug Administration; http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/features/1998/398_pain.html; accessed on February 11, 2008
[763] G. Bushkin, Ph.D., CNC and E. Bushkin,Ph.D., CNC, Uh-Oh. Osteo, January 2000
[764] Greener choices, Consumer Reports (Consumers Union); http://www.greenerchoices.org/products.cfm?product=meat&pcat=food; accessed on February 10, 2008
[765] Ibid.
[766] G. Bushkin, Ph.D., CNC and E. Bushkin, Ph.D., CNC, Uh-Oh. Osteo, January 2000
[767] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[768] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[769] Got allergies and mucus? PETA, milksucks.com
[770] Michael Lam, M.D.,M.P.H., Milk – The Perfect Food? DrLam.com, an insider’s guide to natural medicine
[771] Michael Lam, M.D., M.P.H., About Me, www.lammd.com;
http://www.lammd.com/aboutme.cfm; also http://www.lammd.com/ for related topics
[772] Michael Lam, M.D., M.P.H., Milk – The Perfect Food? DrLam.com, an insider’s guide to natural medicine
[773] Michael Lam, M.D., M.P.H., Milk – The Perfect Food? DrLam.com, an insider’s guide to natural medicine; http://www.drlam.com/A3R_brief_in_doc_format/2003-No2-Milk.cfm#ImmuneSystem
[774] Robert Cohen, Executive Director, Dairy Education Board, Behold the Power of Glue, Dairy Education Board, sponsor of notmilk.com;
http://www.notmilk.com/forum/777.html; accessed on February 2, 2008
[775] Ibid.
[776] Jaime Uribarri, Mona S. Calvo, Hidden Sources of Phosphorus in the Typical American Diet: Does it Matter in Nephrology?
Seminars In Dialysis 16 (3), 186–188, issue online May 12, 2003; http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1525-139X.2003.16037.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=sdi; accessed on February 8, 2008*Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, and
[777] Ibid.
[778] Ibid.
[779] G. Bushkin and E. Bushkin, Uh-oh. Osteo, January 2000
[780] G. Bushkin and E. Bushkin, Uh-oh. Osteo, January 2000
[781] G. Bushkin and E. Bushkin, Uh-oh. Osteo, January 2000
[782] Gary Bushkin,Ph.D., CNC Estitta Bushkin, Ph.D., CNC, Uh-Oh. Osteo, Better Nutrition, January 2000;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKA/is_1_62/ai_61397506
[783] All about menopause: Hormone therapy and disease(“Content provided by the faculty of Harvard Medical School.” “Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Harvard Health Publications”), AOL, last updated August 13, 2007; http://body.aol.com/learn-about-it/menopause/hormone-therapy-and-disease?cc=70
[785] Ibid.
[786] Ibid.
[787] Ibid.
[788] Ibid.
[789] Ibid.
[790] Ibid.
[791] Ibid.
[792] Robert Cohen, Executive Director, Dairy Education
Board, Behold the power of bacteria, Dairy Education Board,
sponsor of notmilk.com;
http://www.notmilk.com/forum/777.html; accessed on February 2, 2008
[793] Lisa Chamberlain, Bacterium in cow’s milk may cause Crohn’s Disease, reprinted from Cleveland Free Times in Project Censored Media, Democracy in Action, November 25, 2000; http://www.projectcensored.org/; accessed on February 20, 2008
[795] Ibid.
[797] Ibid.
[798] Ibid.
[799] Health Concerns about Dairy Products, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/dairy.html
[800] A.J. Lanou, S.E. Berkow, N.D. Barnard, Calcium, dairy products, and bone health in children and young adults: a reevaluation of the evidence. Pediatrics 115(3):736-43, March 2005
[801] Lanou AJ, Berkow SE, Barnard ND. Calcium, dairy products, and bone health in children and young adults: a reevaluation of the evidence. Pediatrics 115:736-43, 2005; http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm05spring/milk_myth.html
[804] Ibid.
[805] Ibid.
[806] Ibid.
[807] Dr. Scott Olson, What the American Dairy Association Will Never Tell You, reprinted from JigsawHealth.com, Pat Sullivan Blog, October 10, 2007
[808] Ibid.
[809] Ibid.
[810] Ibid.
[811] Ibid.
[812] Lanou AJ, Berkow SE, Barnard ND. Calcium, dairy products, and bone health in children and young adults: a reevaluation of the evidence. Pediatrics 115:736-43, 2005
[813] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[814] Dr. Scott Olson, What the American Dairy Association Will Never Tell You, reprinted from JigsawHealth.com, Pat Sullivan Blog, October 10, 2007
[815] Ibid.
[816] Ibid.
[817] Lanou AJ, Berkow SE, Barnard ND. Calcium, dairy products, and bone health in children and young adults: a reevaluation of the evidence. Pediatrics 115:736-43, 2005
[818] Lanou AJ, Berkow SE, Barnard ND. Calcium, dairy products, and bone health in children and young adults: a reevaluation of the evidence. Pediatrics 115:736-43, 2005
[819] Ibid.
[820] Ibid.
[821] Body pH: Balance is key to getting more O2 in and the CO2 out, Alternative Cancer Treatments by www.stopcancer.com (Wayne Graham, cancer survivor); citation of this excellent quote is neither an endorsement, nor a judgment, of any cancer treatments presented on this site; http://www.stopcancer.com/; accessed on February 6, 2008
[822] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[823] Ibid.
[824] Neal D. Barnard, M.D., Weight-Loss Ads Are Big Dairy’s Latest Way to Trick Consumers, AgWeek, Aug. 15, 2005; http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary050908_dairy.html
[825] Neal D. Barnard, M.D., Weight-Loss Ads Are Big Dairy’s Latest Way to Trick Consumers, AgWeek, Aug. 15, 2005; http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary050908_dairy.html
[826] Ibid.
[827] Dairy Products Linked to Prostate Cancer, The Cancer Project; http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/type/prostate/dairy_products.php
[828] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[829] Ibid.
[830] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[831] Ché Green, Not Milk: The USDA, Monsanto, and the U.S. Dairy Industry, reprinted from LiP Magazine: Informed Revolt, July 9, 2002 by Alternet
[832] Ibid.
[833] Is milk a natural? TryVeg.com; accessed on January 30, 2008
[834] Ibid.
[835] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005; http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[836] Neal D. Barnard, Milk Consumption and Prostate Cancer, The Cancer Project webpage, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/diet/prostate_dairy.php
[837] Ronnie Cummins, “Ronnie Cummins: Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone Poses Significant Risks for Consumers”--(Ronnie Cummins: “Studies show synthetic hormones are a risk for humans,” Organic Consumers Association, Press of Atlantic City, NJ, January 24, 2008; http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9902.cfm
[839] Ché Green, Not Milk: The USDA, Monsanto, and the U.S. Dairy Industry, reprinted from LiP Magazine: Informed Revolt, July 9, 2002, Alternet; http://www.alternet.org/story/13557/; accessed on February 2, 2008
[840] Food Pyramids, Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html
[842] Peggy Wild, PhD, CFCS, State Specialist, Family & Consumer Sciences Education, Indiana Department of Education, We Eat; Therefore, They Are, Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2004;
http://listserv.doe.state.in.us/pipermail/facs/2004-August/000417.html
http://partners.guidestar.org/justgive/controller/searchResults.gs?action_gsReport=1&npoId=645396&partner=justgive; accessed on March 12, 2008
http://partners.guidestar.org/justgive/controller/searchResults.gs?action_gsReport=1&npoId=645396&partner=justgive; accessed on March 12, 2008
[846] The bottom line-recommendations for calcium intake and bone health, Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on February 11, 2008
[847] Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, Milk and the Cancer Connection, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 10, 2000; http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/10/milk_cancer.htm
[848] Ibid.
[849] Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, Milk and the Cancer Connection, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 10, 2000; http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/10/milk_cancer.htm
[850] Ibid.
[851] Ibid.
[852] Ibid.
[853] Ibid.
[854] Ibid.
[855] Ibid.
[856] “Dr. Mercola’s Comment” regarding Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, Milk and the Cancer Connection, Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 10, 2000; http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/10/milk_cancer.htm
[857] Ibid.
[858] Where do we get calcium? Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on January 30, 2008
[859] Getting enough calcium, Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on January 30, 2008
[860] Where do we get calcium? Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health
[861] What is osteoporosis? Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on January 30, 2008
[862] Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D, Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health;
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp#h5; updated August 30, 2007; accessed on February 2, 2008. This sheet will be updated again in Spring 2008
[863] Getting enough calcium, Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source,
Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; ac cessed on January 30, 2008
[863] Ibid.
[864] What’s best for your bones? Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health
[865] Ibid.
[866] Jack Norris, "But it Doesn't Hurt the Cow", Vegan Outreach; http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/doesnthurtthecow.html
[867] Miranda Hitti, Vitamin D May Cut Elders' Falls: Fewer Falls Seen in Elderly Taking High Vitamin D Dose,
WebMD Medical News, February 23, 2007;
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20070223/vitamin-d-may-cut-elders-falls
[868] Miranda Hitti, Vitamin D May Cut Elders' Falls: Fewer Falls Seen in Elderly Taking High Vitamin D Dose,
WebMD Medical News, February 23, 2007;
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20070223/vitamin-d-may-cut-elders-falls
[869] Getting enough Vitamin D, Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source,Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on January 30, 2008
[870] Ibid.
[871] Ibid.
[872] Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D, Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health
[873] Ibid.
` [874] Vitamin D: Effectiveness and Safety of Vitamin D in Relation to Bone Health, AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality),August 2007; http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/vitadtp.htm
[875] Miranda Hitti, Vitamin D May Cut Elders' Falls: Fewer Falls Seen in Elderly Taking High Vitamin D Dose,
WebMD Medical News, February 23, 2007
[876] Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D, Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health
[877] Getting enough Vitamin K, Calcium and Milk: Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on January 30, 2008
[878] Some other factors may also help lower the risk of osteoporosis, Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on January 30, 2008
[879] Ibid.
[880] Ibid.
[881] Senior Women: Calcium with Vitamin D May Prevent Weight Gain, Bastyr Center for Natural Health, July 12, 2007; http://www.bastyrcenter.org/content/view/1307/
[882] Paul Appleby, Milk - Nature's Perfect Food?, The Oven, October 1998) Oxford Vegetarians Web site; http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Publications/Oven/Articles_General/milk.html
[883] Bette Caan, DrPH, et al., Senior Women: Calcium with Vitamin D May Prevent Weight Gain,” Archives of Internal Medicine 167:893–902, July 12, 2007.
[884] Ibid.
[885] Ibid.
[886] Ibid.
[887] Ibid.
[888] Ibid.
[889] Ché Green, Not Milk: The USDA, Monsanto, and the U.S. Dairy Industry, reprinted from LiP Magazine: Informed Revolt, July 9, 2002, Alternet; http://www.alternet.org/story/13557/; accessed on February 2, 2008
[891] Paul Appleby, Milk - Nature's Perfect Food?, The Oven, October 1998) Oxford Vegetarians Web site
[892] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Low-fat dairy products linked to heightened allergies, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[893] Cow's Milk: A Natural Choice?, Low-fat dairy products linked to heightened allergies, Toronto Vegetarian Association, March 15, 2005 http://veg.ca/content/view/139/110/
[894] Ibid.
[895] Human Health/Diet, Delaware Action for Animals
[896] Ibid.
[897] Neal D. Barnard, Milk Consumption and Prostate Cancer, The Cancer Project webpage, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/diet/prostate_dairy.php
[898] Paul Appleby, Milk - Nature's Perfect Food?, The Oven, October 1998) Oxford Vegetarians Web site
[899] Neal D. Barnard, Milk Consumption and Prostate Cancer, The Cancer Project webpage, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/diet/prostate_dairy.php
[900] Paul Appleby (Secretary of Oxford Vegetarians),Notes from a talk entitled, “Do Vegetarians Live Longer?” Oxford Vegetarians/International Vegetarian Union; Lectures on March 1, 2002 and March 20, 2002; http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/veglongevity.html
[901] Paul Appleby (Secretary of Oxford Vegetarians),Notes from a talk entitled, “Do Vegetarians Live Longer?” Oxford Vegetarians/International Vegetarian Union; Lectures on March 1, 2002 and March 20, 2002; http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/veglongevity.html
[902] Paul Appleby (Secretary of Oxford Vegetarians), Notes from a talk entitled, “Do Vegetarians Live Longer?” Oxford Vegetarians/International Vegetarian Union; Lectures on March 1, 2002 and March 20, 2002; http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/veglongevity.html
[903] Robert M. Kradjian, M.D., Breast Surgery Chief, Division of General Surgery, Seton Medical Centre, Daly City, CA, Don't Get Milk, Dr. Mercola’s Comments, Dr. Joseph Mercola, 1999
[904]Raw milk/cheese (Listeria, salmonella, e.coli, etc.)contamination reports, Pritzker-Ruohonen Law; http://www.pritzkerlaw.com
[905] Robert M. Kradjian, M.D., Breast Surgery Chief, Division of General Surgery, Seton Medical Centre, Daly City, CA, Don't Get Milk, Dr. Mercola’s Comments, Dr. Joseph Mercola, 1999
[906] Robert M. Kradjian, M.D., Breast Surgery Chief, Division of General Surgery, Seton Medical Centre, Daly City, CA, Don't Get Milk, Dr. Mercola’s Comments, Dr. Joseph Mercola, 1999
[908] Ibid.
[909] Ibid.
[910] Ibid.
[911] Ibid.
[912] Ibid.
[913] Ibid.
[914] Ibid.
[915] Ibid.
[916] Ibid.
[917] Francesca Lyman, More Reasons To Avoid Milk, Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 11, 2001; http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/11/milk.htm
[918] Paul Appleby, Milk - Nature's Perfect Food?, The Oven, October 1998), Oxford Vegetarians Web site; http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Publications/Oven/Articles_General/milk.html
[919] Some other factors may also help lower the risk of osteoporosis, Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on February 28, 2008
[920] Rich Murray (re. Prof. Jane Plant), Reply to “Is Milk Safe to Drink?”, March 20, 2001, E-mail; Vegsource.com; http://www.vegsource.com/talk/science/messages/1415.html
[921] Rich Murray (re. Prof. Jane Plant), Reply to “Is Milk Safe to Drink?”, March 20, 2001, E-mail; Vegsource.com; http://www.vegsource.com/talk/science/messages/1415.html
[922] Peggy Gannon, Breast Cancer: A Preventable Disease Through Good Nutrition, American Chronicle, Feb 11, 2008;reprinted from www.naturalnews.com; http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53406
[923] Mary Laredo, A Holistic Strategy Against Cancer, American Chronicle, February 26, 2008; reprinted from www.naturalnews.com; http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53406
[924] Rich Murray (re. Prof. Jane Plant), March 20, 2001, E-mail, Vegsource.com
[925] Hold the Cheese, Halt Cancer, The Cancer Project, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/type/testicular.php
[926] Calcium and milk, Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on February 1, 2008
[927] Calcium and milk, Harvard School of Public Health; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html; accessed on February 1, 2008
[928] Neal D. Barnard, Milk Consumption and Prostate Cancer, The Cancer Project webpage, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/diet/prostate_dairy.php
[929] Ibid.
[930] Neal D. Barnard, Milk Consumption and Prostate Cancer, The Cancer Project webpage, http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/diet/prostate_dairy.php
[931] Ibid.
[932] Ibid.
[933] Ibid.
[934] Ibid.
[935] Ibid.
[936] Dairy Products Linked to Prostate Cancer, The Cancer Project, 2001; http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/type/prostate/dairy_products.php
[937] J.M. Chan, M.J. Stampfer, J. Ma, P.H. Gann, J.M. Gaziano, E.L. Giovannucci, Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study, Am J Clin Nutr. 74(4):549-54, October 2001
[938] Dairy Products Linked to Prostate Cancer, The Cancer Project, 2001; http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/type/prostate/dairy_products.php
[939] J.M. Chan, M.J. Stampfer, J. Ma, P.H. Gann, J.M. Gaziano, E.L. Giovannucci, Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study, Am J Clin Nutr. 74(4):549-54, October 2001
[940] S. Rohrmann, E.A. Platz , C.J. Kavanaugh , L. Thuita , S.C. Hoffman , K.J. Helzlsouer, Meat and dairy consumption and subsequent risk of prostate cancer in a US cohort study, Cancer Causes & Control. 18(1):41-50, February 2007
[941] Ibid.
[942] Nonfat milk linked to prostate cancer, Reuters Health, January 2, 2008; http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSHAR26781420080102
[943] Ibid.
[944] Ibid.
[945] Ibid.
[946] Ibid.
[947] Ibid.
[948] Ibid.
[949] Ibid.
[950] Ibid.
[952] Ibid.
[953] Ibid.
[954] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge);
https://hfa.org/campaigns/dairy.html
[955] Ibid.
[956] Ibid.
[957] Ibid.
[958] FDA Changing Cheese Labeling: Take Action, Gary Null Discussion Forum/Blog, Garynullforum.com, February 7, 2008; http://www.garynullforum.com/forum/
[959] Ibid.
[960] Ibid.
[961] Ibid.
[962] Ibid.
[963] Matt Jenkins, Brave new hay: Monsanto erases the line between what is natural and what isn’t, The Illinois Times, June 28, 2007; http://www.illinoistimes.com/
[964] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge)
[965] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge)
[966] Ibid.
[967] Ibid.
[968] Ibid.
[969] Ibid.
[970] Ibid.
[971] MILK MACHINES--Dangers in the Dairy Industry, BGH: Turning Cows into Biotech Milk Machines, HFA, the Humane Farming Association (farm animal protection and refuge);
https://hfa.org/campaigns/dairy.html
[972] Cattle, The Vegetarian Society of the United Kingdom, http://www.vegsoc.org/info/cattle.html
[973] Ibid.
[974] Dairy Industry Report, InsideDairyProduction.com webpage, East Bay Animal Advocates, http://www.insidedairyproduction.com/wst_page2.html
[976] Ibid.
[977] Cows Used for Their Milk, GoVeg.com Webpage, PETA, http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_cows_dairy.asp
[979] Dairy Industry Report, InsideDairyProduction.com webpage, East Bay Animal Advocates, http://www.insidedairyproduction.com/wst_page2.html
[980] Cows Used for Their Milk, GoVeg.com Webpage, PETA, http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_cows_dairy.asp
[981] Benjamin Spock, Good Nutrition for Kids, Good Medicine Magazine, Volume VII, Number 2, Spring / Summer 1998; http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM98SpringSummer/GM98SpSm1.html
[982] Benjamin Spock, Good Nutrition for Kids, Good Medicine Magazine, Volume VII, Number 2, Spring / Summer 1998; http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM98SpringSummer/GM98SpSm1.html
[983] Paul Goettlich, What are Endocrine Disruptors?, rev. August 8, 2006; http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/EDs-PWG-16jun01.htm
[984] Paul Goettlich, What are Endocrine Disruptors?, rev. August 8, 2006; http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/EDs-PWG-16jun01.htm
[985] Paul Goettlich, What are Endocrine Disruptors?, rev. August 8, 2006; http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/EDs-PWG-16jun01.htm
[986] Ibid.
[987] Ibid.
[988] Paul Goettlich, What are Endocrine Disruptors?, rev. August 8, 2006; http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/EDs-PWG-16jun01.htm
[989] Oxford Vegetarians; http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/