Milk in American culture has become ubiquitous: it is used to make a variety of foods and beverages and is often a staple item in many households.  Dairy has been portrayed as a healthy and necessary dietary supplement – full of wholesome goodness.  But is this really the case?  Continual research and clinical studies may suggest the opposite.

From infancy most of us are nourished on our mother’s milk.  It is specifically designed with the nutritional balance necessary to assist babies in growth, immunity, brain function and the development of the nervous system.  But what happens when we supplement our baby’s diet with dairy from cow or soy formulas?  Studies show that “formula-fed babies have approximately one-tenth the level of bacteria-fighting lactobacillus” as “breast fed children [who] scored ten points higher in IQ tests than the formulated group” (Williams, 2002, para. 8).

While milk is often promoted as the “perfect food,” it may be better qualified as the perfect food for the species that actually produces it. A cow produces a serum that is specifically designed to enable its calf to grow rapidly, approximately 500 pounds within a six month period.  It is inadequate for the needs of the developing human infant who may grow an average of seven pounds in three months.  It is also lacking in essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid, which may be necessary for proper development.  Additionally, cow’s milk has been associated with numerous childhood afflictions such as colds and flu, ear infections, congestion, allergy, rashes, asthma, colic, bovine leukemia virus, and even childhood diabetes (Williams, 2002).

Since many individuals continue to consume cow’s milk into adulthood, children are not the only group affected by the potential negative effects of dairy. Adults may be plagued with an array of symptoms such as behavioral problems, skin rashes and eruptions, blood disorders, bone and joint trouble, upper and lower gastrointestinal complications, as well as respiratory problems (Iacono, 1998).  Even more worrisome, breast and ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma, gall stones, Crohn’s disease, and even osteoporosis have been attributed to dairy (Williams, 2002).  Despite current research on milk, individuals are still unaware that their health concerns may actually be the result of dairy consumption.

How can this be when we have been guided since youth to believe that milk and dairy are an important source of the calcium and protein necessary for strong bones?  Dr. Robert Kradjian, former chief of General Surgery at Seton Medical Center, conveys that large amounts of dairy may actually hinder calcium absorption. With such high protein content, dairy draws good calcium from the bones to help with the pH imbalance of digesting animal proteins (Kradjian, 1999 and Williams, 2002).  Dr. Kradjian states, “it seems that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis” (1999, para. 76).  It should also be noted that the type of calcium found in milk is calcium carbonate, which is the most difficult form of calcium to absorb (Kessinger, 2007).

One may be wondering at this point, what exactly is in milk that causes such adverse reactions?  One reason is that many proteins in milk are not particularly digestible by humans: hence, lactose intolerance.  While milk does contain specific enzymes that could help digest these proteins, the enzymes are destroyed during the pasteurization and homogenization process (Williams, 2002).  Because of this, many individuals prefer to drink raw milk, as they are more apt to receive the nutritional benefits.  Unfortunately, they may also receive much more.

One study showed that milk from dairy cows often contains the leukeogenic virus that can develop into leukemia in bovines. The data showed that milk drinkers are often exposed to the virus orally; in fact, more than “20 percent of the dairy cows and approximately 60 percent of the herds surveyed in the United States were infected with Bovine Leukemia virus (BLV)” (Ferrer, 1981 ). Pasteurization is supposed to kill BLV, but this does not help those who consume unpasteurized milk. Yet even in pasteurized milk, the researchers don’t know if the process “destroys the biological activity of the pro-viral BLV DNA in the infected cells of milk” (ibid). The end conclusion is that, while there is no direct evidence linking BLV to human leukemia, the data does not rule out this possibility. It should be noted that, ten years after the previous study, a prospective study of Norwegian citizens showed “a strong positive association with milk consumption” and “cancers of the lymphatic organs” (Ursin, G., E. Bjelke, I. Heuch  and S. Vollset, 1990). Because of this strong association between milk and cancer, many individuals may not want to risk their own health and the health of their loved ones by consuming dairy.

Another ingredient in both pasteurized and unpasteurized milk that one may not be aware of is a genetically engineered version of bovine growth hormone (rBGH). This hormone causes the cow to produce an unnatural amount of milk.  As a common result, the animal develops a painful mastitis (infection) and must be treated with antibiotics.  Along with this appetizing mixture, one may also enjoy a tasty cocktail of chemicals, insecticides, pesticides, hormones, feces, white blood cells (pus), salmonella, and e-coli (Kradjian, 1999 and Williams, 2002).  While the pasteurization process is designed to destroy the bacteria, it is not always successful.  In a possible attempt to deceive the public, these contents have been camouflaged on labels with such wordy language as “macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles, etc” (Kradjian, 1999, para. 31).  Dr. Kradjian also expresses concern that the prion, or protein infectious particle, which causes Creutzfeldt-Jakobs Disease (the human form of Mad Cow Disease), could potentially enter the milk stream.  While it is only known to infect beef at this time, other similar diseases have crossed over into dairy products  in the past (1999).

Why, despite the research, does milk remain a prevalent household staple among many Americans? One thing to consider is that the dairy industry spends almost $200 million dollars per year in marketing. It is easy to see that if most people get their “information” about milk from the dairy industry through advertising, that information could be skewed. With celebrity role models wearing milk mustaches, advertising can also influence children. In addition, the biotech giant, Monsanto, has been hard at work keeping consumer labeling at bay.  Amazingly, in a 1994 Vermont labeling dispute, Monsanto claimed it was unconstitutional to be forced to disclose information to the consumer as it violated their First Amendment right.  Not only did they win the dispute but they were also able to prevent other retailers from labeling their milk rBGH-free, claiming that customers would then discriminate against their genetically altered product (Kessinger, 2007; Kingsnorth, 1998). Without access to the scientific data, most people may not be aware of the controversy surrounding milk consumption.

Despite this, the diligent public may have made slight gains in the battle of sub-standard dairy products and labeling.  Some dairy farmers have committed to going rBGH-free, and still others have made the leap to organic production (Williams, 2007).  While organic is certainly a better option, perhaps the best option would be to eliminate dairy completely.  The beneficial nutrients that dairy is purported to contain, like calcium, are even more numerous in other foods like green leafy vegetables, broccoli, spinach and almonds, among many other sources (Kessinger, 2007).  In addition, there are many milk substitutes to choose from, such as almond or nut milk, soy, rice, oat and even hemp milk.

Another factor that may contribute to why milk is so wide-spread is the fact that it contains naturally occurring morphine. A study published in Science found that the “morphine material in milk is identical in chemical, biochemical, immunological, and pharmacological properties to authentic morphine” (Hazum, Sabatka, Kwen-Jen 1981). The researchers proposed the theory that morphine enters mammals through plant-derived natural sources and that, perhaps, there is a mechanism in the body that makes it concentrate in the mammary glands. Researchers have shown that, not only can morphine be transmitted to those who consume the milk, it can be addictive as well. The study showed that mothers who are addicted to high levels of morphine can make their babies addicted by breast feeding them. Infants must then be weaned off the mothers’ milk and often suffer opiate withdrawal symptoms (ibid). While the concentration of morphine in milk is lower, it does suggest that the morphine in milk enters the system of consumers and could possibly become addictive depending on the amount of dairy consumed. Could this be the reason many find it difficult to give up dairy in their diets?

While a transition away from dairy may take some getting used to, it may contain many surprising health benefits as well.  When we consider our longevity and the quality of life we desire to live, this alternative lifestyle may not seem so drastic after all – just a little bump in the road as we watch the proverbial milk man drive by.

References

• Ferrer, J., S. Kenyon and P. Gupta. 1981. Milk of dairy cows frequently contains a leukemogenic virus. Science, New Series 213 (4511): 1014-1016.
• Hazum, E., J. Sabatka, C. Kwen-Jen, et al. 1981. Morphine in cow and human milk: could dietary morphine constitute a ligand for specific morphine (μ) receptors? Science, New Series 213 (4511): 1010-1012.
• Iacono, G., F. Cavataio, G. Montalto, et al. 1998. Intolerance of cow's milk and chronic constipation in children. New England Journal of Medicine 339(16): 1100-4.
• Kessinger, J. 2000.  From the editor’s desk.  Original Internist, 14(2): 51-52.
• Kingsnorth, P. 1998. Bovine growth hormones.  The Ecologist, 28(5): 266-269.
• Kradjian, R.  1999. The milk letter:  A message to my patients. NotMilk Web sit http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html (accessed February 4, 2010).
• Ursin, G., E. Bjelke, I. Heuch  and S. Vollset. 1990. Milk consumption and cancer incidence: Norwegian prospective study. British Journal of Cancer (61): 454-459.
• Williams, Rose Marie.  2007. Bovine growth hormone:  Consumers fight back.  Townsend Letter:  The Examiner of Alternative Medicine 285, 60-62.
• Williams, R.  2002. More milk myths.  Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, 48 - 50.
• Williams, R.  2002. What’s milk got?  Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, 128 -130.