by Shalin G. Gala
"Milk - it does a body good." This is the message the National Dairy Council drives into people's minds. Not only does diary milk supposedly do a body good, but the Council would have you believe that dairy milk is "needed" to build strong and healthy bones. So, with this information in hand, one would think that what I'm about to say about the dangers of dairy milk is ludicrous. But, instead of debating partisan propaganda, let's examine some popular myths and objective scientific facts.
Myth #1 - The Nation Dairy Council's "3-A-Day" program stresses that 3 servings of dairy milk per day provides needed calcium for one's bones and is the "best" source for dietary calcium.
Fact #1 - False. According to Dr. Robert Atkins, the calcium/phosphorus ratio is important to look at when discussing calcium absorption with regard to dairy milk. The ideal ratio is 2.5 to 1; whereas the ratio in dairy milk is 1.3 to 1. Given these very similar concentrations, when calcium and phosphorus reach the intestine together, they compete for absorption. Thus, using common sense, the more phosphorus there is, the less calcium is absorbed. In addition, excess phosphorous in the body triggers the release of parathyroid hormone, which actually takes calcium OUT of the bone.
If you don't believe this information, then let's look at 2 scientific studies. At Yale University, researchers looked at 34 published studies from 16 different countries and concluded that the countries with the highest rate of osteoporosis (brittle bones resulting from the lack of dietary calcium) were the ones in which people consumed the most meat and dairy milk. Another landmark study, done by Harvard University, followed 78,000 women over a 12 year period and found that women who consumed the most calcium from dairy foods broke more bones than those who rarely ever drank dairy milk. These studies then contradict the knowledge given to us by the National Dairy Council that dairy milk prevents osteoporosis. How could this be? For an answer, let's see what the dairy industry has to say.
In the 1993 edition of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Dr. Robert P. Heaney, a senior author of a dairy-industry financed study, reported that as the amount of animal protein consumption increases, the amount of calcium lost in the urine also increases. He writes, "The net effect is such that, if protein intake is doubled without changing the intake of other nutrients, urinary calcium content increases by about 50 percent." Thus, the take home message is that an excess of animal protein (from sources such as dairy milk) causes an increased urinary excretion of calcium that should have been used for the body's bones.
Still skeptical? Let's then consider some cross-cultural evidence. The African Bantu woman's diet is dairy free, yet she still gets 250 to 400 mg of daily calcium from various vegetable sources. Western women get approximately double this amount, mainly from dairy sources. In a Bantu woman's lifetime, she commonly bears 10 children and breast feeds all of them for about 10 months. But, even with the tremendous calcium drain caused by the excessive breast feeding, and the low calcium intake (relative to Western women), osteoporosis is essentially unknown among these women. Interestingly enough, when relatives of these same Bantu people move to more affluent societies and adopt dairy-rich diets, osteoporosis and teeth diseases become common.
Conclusion - Dairy milk aids in the development of osteoporosis. Instead of "Got Milk?" the National Dairy Council should consider changing its slogan to "Got Osteoporosis?"
Myth #2 - The FDA and the National Dairy Council have both made firm assurances to the general public that dairy milk is safe even if it contains Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone.
Fact #2 - False. Let's look at the facts. Biweekly injections of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) stimulates dairy cows to produce about 10% to 25% more milk than normal. The major consequence of this procedure, according to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Illinois School of Public Health, is that rBGH-derived milk contains high levels Insulin Growth Factor (IGF-1) - a risk factor for breast and colon cancer. Not destroyed during pasteurization, IGF-1 causes cellular division and induces malignancies of breast epithelial cells.
If you do not buy this data, let's take a look at what Monsanto (the developer of rBGH) has to say. Documented in its 1993 application to the British government for permission to sell rBGH in England, Monsanto reported that IGF-1 levels went up substantially (about 5 times than normal) when dairy cows received rBGH injections.
Conclusion - By its own admission, Monsanto says that rBGH injected into dairy cattle causes increased levels of IGF-1, a risk factor for human breast and colon cancer.
Myth #3 - The National Dairy Council says that milk is "safe" for human consumption.
Fact #3 - False. In 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated in a paper that consumption of animal fat and dairy products contains traces of dioxin, a carcinogenic chlorine byproduct found in the toxic Agent Orange, which can be dangerous at very low levels and can accumulate in the body over a lifetime. However, this report never saw the light of day due to dairy industry and Republican opposition. Trying to prevent disastrous financial consequences if this report became published, the chemical, dairy, and veal industries used their $1,171,000 contribution to the Bush campaign as leverage in getting partisan Republican support to indefinitely postpone the release of the study. Stating that consumers of dioxin have a 1 in 100 chance of getting cancer, the EPA revealed a pressing danger presented by the dairy industry. But, thanks to partisan politics, people are systematically disempowered from protecting their own health.
Conclusion - Money is the root of all evil. Carcinogenic dioxin in dairy products is a real risk, but the dairy industry would rather see profits rise than protect the public health.
In concert with the systematic disempowerment of the public's health, the dairy industry spends millions of dollars on biased education programs that brainwash children into not only thinking that dairy milk is good for a person's body, but that a person "needs" dairy milk to be healthy. A prime example of this "education" program is HISD's "Mobile Dairy Classroom" - a program funded, not surprisingly, by dairy businesses across the Southwest. Comprised of a 45-minute presentation extolling the "virtues" of dairy milk, the "Mobile Dairy Classroom" targets 800 to 1000 pre-kindergarten through sixth grade students per school visit. By hooking youth into the biased philosophy that dairy milk "does a body good," the dairy industry solidifies its consumer market for the future.
This program, and the blind acceptance of dairy milk, is an outrageous abuse of power and influence that must be amended. The deception of adults is one thing, but conning innocent children, who must rely on officials to advocate for the kids' best interests, is frankly morally unacceptable. School is supposed to be a place where students come to learn and enhance their intellects, not a place where their interests are sold to big business for a price. If anything, students should have the opportunity to make an informed decision about which product to buy, be that dairy milk or some non-dairy alternative (such as soy milk).
With this information in mind, I raise the following dilemma. On the HISD Food Services web site, Executive General Manager Ralph Young notes, " At Food Services our goal is to provide your child with nutritious meals. Studies have shown that eating nutritious, well-balanced meals helps students perform better in all areas of their lives, including academic achievement." I whole-heartedly support this goal that HISD Food Services has set for itself. However, this goal then leads to my question: how, by providing dairy milk that is bad for human health and contaminated with carcinogenic dioxin, could HISD Food Services expect to meet its goal of providing "nutritious, well-balanced meals?" More importantly, what motivation would HISD Food Services have to continue serving dairy milk to children?
The answer, in a word, is money. The more people who purchase dairy milk from school signifies more money for HISD Food Services. The dairy industry has a long history of being a profit-making machine, and HISD has a history of collaborating with the dairy industry (through programs like the "Mobile Dairy Classroom") to promote its pro-dairy propaganda to youth. The only fair solution is to amend the "Mobile Dairy Classroom" to include a more balanced account of dairy milk and the risks involved in its consumption, and to provide non-dairy alternatives to students so that they can be engaged and informed consumers rather than the unfortunate dupes of dairy propaganda.
Shalin Gala shalin2003@yahoo.com is the Founder of Project P.H.A.T. - Promoting Healthy Alternatives through Teamwork.
