How The Dairy Industry Tricked Us into Believing We ‘Need’ Milk

by True Activist

Got Milk? We sure hope not. Despite being a somewhat tasty addition to coffee, tea, and delectable treats, the ingredient – when pasteurized – is highly toxic to the human body. In fact, physicians such as Dr. Willet, who has conducted many studies and reviewed the research on the topic, believe milk to be more of a detriment to the human body than an aid.

This is because despite popular belief, the food has never been shown to reduce fracture risk. In fact, according to the Nurses’ Health Study, dairy may increase risk of fractures by 50%! This concerning finding is supported by the fact that countries with lowest rates of dairy and calcium consumption (like those in Africa and Asia) have the lowest rates of osteoporosis.

Considering that approximately 3/4 of the world’s population is unable to digest milk and other dairy products, it seems clear the food is not an ideal substance for consumption. However, the average consumer doesn’t know this. From celebrity endorsements to advertisements by the dairy industry, most have been taught to believe that dairy is an ideal food for optimum health.

2016-08-02_9-29-31

Because there’s so much misinformation surrounding the subject, Voxrecently created a video which illustrates the facade of the dairy industry. One of the points made is that despite the fact that consumers can get the daily recommendation of calcium, potassium, and protein from fruits and vegetables, the dairy industry has spent billions of dollars to convince the populace otherwise.

If you were taught that one must drink milk to grow up “big and strong,” you’re not alone. However, now is the time to get educated on the facts.

 

Because milk is very mucus-forming in the human body, it is believed to contribute to allergies, ear infections, Type 1 diabetes, anemia, and even constipation. In addition, the food may contribute to various types of cancers as consumption of the product increases the body’s level of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1).

The good news is that there are plenty of tasty, creamy dairy alternativesthat are not only easy-to-make, they’re affordable. ‘Milks’ from rice, almonds, cashew, hemp, and even coconut can be found in most grocery stores, and some companies even sell dairy-free ice cream – such as Ben & Jerry’s! In fact, the non-dairy milk market has surged within the past few years. Almond milk sales, in particular, have increased by 250 percent from 2000-2015 to almost $895 million.

 

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “How The Dairy Industry Tricked Us into Believing We ‘Need’ Milk

  1. I commented on renegade about casomorphine in cows milk causing addictions to dairy products. I had read about it years ago when I was becoming vegan, so about 2010-2011. I had not looked it up since, but today because of this article I did. Casomorphine in cows milk is now seen to be a large contender for sudden infant death (crib death). I have thought about doing an article on instant formula and how nestle brainwashed parents into conveniently doing the wrong thing. I think I might now.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I would like to share my views regarding this topic. Only A2 milk produced by humped Indian cows ( Zebu) is good for health , while A1 milk produced by the humpless western cows like Ayrshire, Holstein and Jersey is toxic for health. The various problems associated with humpless cow’s toxic A1 milk are:
    – Autism,
    – Diabetes-type 1
    – Sudden death Syndrome in infants
    – Ulcerative colitis,
    – Cardiac problems
    – Multiple sclerosis,
    – Mental disorders
    – Parkinsons
    – Schizophrenia.
    – Obesity
    – Arteriosclerosis
    – Intolerance bloating

    The ideal calcium to magnesium ratio for the human body should be 2:1. The A1 milk’s ratio is 10:1. By relying on A1 cow’s milk for calcium, you will have magnesium deficiency and imbalance.
    Magnesium relaxes you, helps improve digestion, increases alkalinity of the blood and flexibility of the tissues. It is a muscle relaxant. Magnesium is critical for the assimilation of calcium into the bones and is crucial for regular heart function. Magnesium is anti-inflammatory and a de-toxifier. Magnesium is the master molecule of the human body and is needed in over 300 different process the body performs. It is the catalyst of life.
    Magnesium is involved in nerve and muscle function. Magnesium activates the enzymes necessary for a number of physiological functions, including neuromuscular contractions, heart and cardiovascular function, and the regulation of the acid-alkaline balance in the body. 2% of Migraines are related Calcium magnesium imbalance. Magnesium is required for the body to produce and store energy. Without magnesium there is no energy, no movement, no life. It is that simple. Different mutations in bovine beta casein gene have led to 12 genetic variants and out of these A1 and A2 are the most common. The A1 and A2 variants of beta casein differ at amino acid position 67 with histidine (CAT) in A1 and proline (CCT) in A2 milk as a result of single nucleotide difference.
    This polymorphism leads to a key conformational change in the secondary structure of expressed β-casein protein. Gastrointestinal proteolytic digestion of A1 variant of β-casein (raw/processed milk) leads to generation of bioactive peptide, beta casomorphin 7 (BCM7). Autistic and schizophrenic persons typically excrete large quantities of BCM7 in their urine.
    A1 milk casein sustains endometriosis, because it of its inflammatory, immune-disruptive effect. This condition improves after shunning A1 milk. Endometriosis is a gynecological medical condition in which cells from the lining of the uterus (endometrium) appear and flourish outside the uterine cavity, most commonly on the membrane which lines the abdominal cavity. Many women with infertility may have endometriosis.
    On the other hand, A2 milk of Indian humped cows is more beneficial, as it has micronutrients like cytokines and minerals which enhance the immune system (A2 beta-casein protein). The dewlaps( skin on the neck ) on humped cows helps them to cope with the extreme heat, keep most diseases away and also calve without any difficulty. Larger the dewlap, better the resistance power of the cow towards parasites and diseases. The Indian humped cows produce less milk but of better quality. In India, the zebu is considered to represent Nandi, the sacred bull of Lord Shiva (the destroyer).
    Source: Ajit Vadakayil’s blog & Wikipedia
    Conclusion: The preference order should be-
    Mother’s milk > A2 milk of Vedic cows > Buffalo milk > Goat or Camel’s milk
    A1 milk of western humpless cows: NO

    Like

      1. I am sure about the quality of Bos Zebu’s milk only. Really have no idea about the quality of A2 milk given by other European cows.

        Like

  3. There is a huge difference between raw milk from cows eating grass and commercial pasteurised milk.

    Europeans have been drinking raw milk for thousands of years, most of us tolerate raw milk from healthy cows well, and those that are sensitive often tolerate fermented dairy. Articles like this one ignore racial, cultural and lifestyle differences when they say things like “countries with lowest rates of dairy and calcium consumption (like those in Africa and Asia) have the lowest rates of osteoporosis.” and “3/4 of the world’s population is unable to digest milk”.

    The article fails to tell us how exactly we can get enough calcium from plants alone, and whether Europeans are adapted to eating this way. There are anti-nutrients in plant foods that bind themselves to minerals to make them pass through your body without being absorbed, so while in theory it may look like someone can get enough calcium from plants, in practise it may not be the same.

    There’s plenty of propaganda around from the soy, grain and processed food industries as well, and it seems to be working, based on the last paragraph of this article! These fake products filled with added synthetic vitamins create a lot of landfill waste and pollution, where as there are small farms around that will sell raw milk in returnable glass bottles, and anyone with a backyard can keep their own dairy goats.

    Like

    1. I personally was allergic to dairy. Even raw dairy. I would get chronic sinusitis which was very painful. Not everyone needs to drink milk and the dairy industry has been pushing this crap on children as a necessity, when it’s really not necessary for healthy nutrition. I’ve been vegan for over a year now and have had my blood levels checked to make sure I am not deficient in anything, and everything is looking good so far. I’m not sure how leaving out dairy from ones diet would make them absorb less nutrients. Do you have any further info on that process?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Leaving out dairy alone isn’t a problem for those who can’t tolerate it (although ghee is usually tolerated by people who can’t have other forms of dairy, and if it’s from grass eating cows contains good amounts of D3, retinol and K2), leaving out animal foods altogether has never been practised by healthy societies that have children, only by celibate monks.

        Animal foods don’t have these anti-nutrients, and our ancestors are well adapted to them, where as relying on new world foods is risky as it’s hard to say how much we absorb from them.

        I was a vegan for 9 years, I was out in the sun every day one summer, got my blood levels checked a couple of months later and was severely deficient in vitamin D. My other levels of vitamins and minerals that could be checked were mostly *just* over the OK line, which at the time I thought was good because it wasn’t deficient, but in hindsight, they should have been higher, to account for the stress that pregnancy and breastfeeding takes on our nutrient stores, they can’t check for everything with blood tests either.

        I just think veganism is too much of an experiment for Europeans in their reproductive years, it’s hard to know the long term effects of it on our children, and on future generations. Lots of jews are pushing it, the UN is pushing it, mainstream media everywhere is telling us to cut down on meat, dairy etc, where as there were far less health problems when we ate more meat and dairy, and less grains, sugar and polyunsaturated oils.

        Like

    2. “Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, was associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in old age. (“Case-Control Study of Risk Factors for Hip Fractures in the Elderly”. American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 139, No. 5, 1994).

      “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.” (Source: Feskanich D, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study. American Journal of Public Health. 1997).

      “The countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are the ones where people drink the most milk and have the most calcium in their diets. The connection between calcium consumption and bone health is actually very weak, and the connection between dairy consumption and bone health is almost nonexistent.”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s hard to say whether the results of those studies are because Europeans are more likely to get osteoporosis than other races, or whether it’s because of the increased consumption of skim milk over the last 100 years (calcium alone doesn’t help, it needs fat soluble vitamins like retinol, D3 and K2 to be absorbed), or if it’s what modern dairy cows are being fed, or whether the pasteurisation process destroys the nutrients or changes the milk in ways that we don’t know of.

        Like

    1. How much of these foods do I need to eat in order to get this amount of calcium? Is it per certain number of calories, per cup, per pound?

      Will I get exactly the same amount from broccoli grown in depleted, chemically farmed soils, as I will in organically farmed, nutrient rich soils? What if the broccoli has been sitting in the fridge for a week, will it have the same amount of calcium as broccoli that’s been picked minutes before harvesting? Is the orange juice freshly squeezed from oranges, or from a carton that contains added calcium? How much of this calcium is actually absorbed, and how much isn’t because of the anti-nutrients in these foods?

      There are a lot of variables.

      Will the calcium be absorbed if I just eat steamed broccoli by itself? Or does it need vitamin D3 and retinol to absorb it, K2 to direct the calcium to where it’s needed?

      There are just too many variables I think. And one of my children, for instance, from that picture of foods would only eat the orange juice, and almonds if they’re ground up and used in baked goods, how am I supposed to make sure he gets enough calcium if he is a picky eater, what am I supposed to do if the global food supply system stops and I suddenly can’t get oranges or almond flour?…

      Like

    1. Sinead mam, I may be wrong but I don’t think soy is a good source for getting calcium. Soy contains phytoestrogens. Phytoestrogens are plant-derived xenoestrogens not generated within the endocrine system but consumed by eating phytoestrogenic plants. My mother used to develop lots of mysterious rashes on her skin 10 years ago. When test results cam out, she found that soy was the reason behind the rashes. Her condition improved after she removed soy from her diet. Although this may not apply in general to all women but I thought that I should share my mother’s experience.

      Like

      1. There is a lot of disinformation out there regarding soy. Phytoestrogens are not the same as actual mammalian estrogen that people are consuming when they eat dairy from a lactating cow. Cow estrogen is much more similar to our bodies than plant estrogen. This is why I developed ovarian cysts when I was consuming dairy products. A lot of the soy produced today is genetically modified so that may be why your mother had a bad reaction. It’s really easy to make your own tofu as well, which avoids any of the preservatives and what not. Here is what a doctor has to say about soy: http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/vegan-doctor-addresses-soy-myths-and-misinformation/

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Soy has never traditionally been eaten by Europeans. Even if someone insists on eating only plant foods there’s no need for them to eat soy.

        There’s a lot of misinformation about soy put out there by vegans. In one highly regarded vegan health book I read that phytoestrogens had no effect on oestrogen levels, and then in a different chapter of the same book read that the phytoestrogens are good for menopause because of the effect it has on oestrogen!!!

        I’ve seen firsthand how some people react to phytoestrogens in the diet, even from organic soy, but have seen no ill effects from dairy in the same person.

        Dairy has been eaten by Europeans for thousands of years, soy has been eaten by Whites for maybe 100 years?! Even Asians only traditionally ate it in moderation, usually as fermented condiments. Fermenting soy is the only way to get rid of the phytic acid anti-nutrient in soy, so soy milk and tofu are probably nutritionally worthless as all the minerals in it wouldn’t be absorbed.

        Like

      3. It’s one of those things that has spread on the Internet and unbelievably, has become accepted truth to many people: that soy is unhealthy, even dangerous.

        I mention (to otherwise smart and informed people) that I drink soymilk sometimes, and a look of pity comes over their faces. ‘This guy doesn’t know the dangers of soy, and might get cancer, or worse … man boobs,’ they’re thinking.

        Just about every fitness expert I read — people I respect and trust — says that soy is bad for you, from Tim Ferriss to the primal/paleo folk. I absolutely respect most of these guys and otherwise think their work on fitness-related matters is great. And yet, when I look for their sources on soy, often they don’t exist, and when they do, I can always trace them back to one place.

        The Weston A. Price Foundation.

        Seriously. I’ve never seen anyone cite a single peer-reviewed study that shows that soy is unhealthy. The only sources are the Weston A. Price Foundation, or other articles that use the Weston A. Price Foundation as a source (read more).

        Here’s the thing: the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) have been on a vendetta against soy (and on a campaign for meat and raw milk) for a couple decades now, and they have no solid evidence to back up their vendetta. They have lots of quasi-scientific evidence, lots of reasonable-sounding arguments, but if you look for solid proof, you won’t find any. They are not scientists, and have conducted no actual peer-reviewed studies of their own (that I know about).

        It’s amazing how many people have been influenced by WAPF’s wacky writings — whenever you read articles not only against soy, but about the myths of cholesterol or saturated fat (WAPF dangerously advocates a diet high in saturated fat), or about raw milk or meat, or about coconut oil and butter … it is based on the work of WAPF. WAPF has even influenced the writings of major writers as Gary Taubes and Michael Pollan.

        I’m not going to tell you to fill your diet with soy. I eat it moderately, like anything else, but am not afraid of it. What I am going to do is clear up some myths, and challenge those who disagree with me to show actual peer-reviewed studies (not articles by WAPF or that cite WAPF as their source).

        Who are the Weston A. Price Foundation?
        I won’t do an entire treatise on WAPF, as others have done it better:

        Weston A. Price Foundation, Stupid Traditions
        Weston A. Price Foundation: Shills & Quacks
        The Truth About Weston A. Price Foundation
        Reflections on the Weston A. Price Foundation
        Questioning Weston A. Price Foundation
        I’d encourage you to read these and consider the arguments and evidence, not the sources. While some of these articles are from vegetarians, that doesn’t negate the arguments — they just seem more motivated to do the research on WAPF than most people are.

        But basically the WAPF is a fringe group that advocates some weird health claims about meat, raw milk, butter … but who came along just at the time when the meat and dairy industry was worried about soy being promoted as a healthy alternative. WAPF claims they don’t take money from agribusiness or the food processing industry, which is both true and admirable … but they do receive funding from sponsors and members — a large percentage of whom are dairy and meat farmers.

        Anyway, the problem is not where their funding comes from — it’s their science. Sally Fallon (WAPF founder) and her co-author Mary Enig, WAPF board member Dr. Joe Mercola, Stephen Byrnes, and other WAPF authors use quack science to promote their agenda, and yet most people can’t distinguish between good and bad science. When they make claims about Eskimo diets being entirely meat and fat based, that sounds reasonable to most people, who don’t realize that you can’t just observe a people and make conclusions that are then generalized to other populations, or that the Inuit Greenlanders had the shortest life expectancy of any indigenous North Americans and high cancer rates (read more). Most people don’t understand how empirical science is done, and so don’t understand why criticism by the WAPF’s Chris Masterjohn of The China Study is a misinterpretation of the evidence.

        Don’t take my word for it. Read the links above, become informed, weigh the evidence. Ask for the results of actual peer-reviewed studies, instead of relying on scientific-sounding arguments.

        Does soy contain dangerous estrogens?
        One of the most-repeated of WAPF’s myths about soy is that it contains dangerous estrogens that will cause cancer, man boobs, and a host of other health problems. So I thought it would be good to clear this up.

        There is no evidence that eating soy causes any of the problems caused by raised levels of estrogen (a hormone that’s already naturally in our bodies).

        The confusion that WAPF plays on is that soy contains a natural, non-steroidal compound called isoflavones, and also sometimes referred to as phytoestrogens — but actually many other plants and plant foods contain phytoestrogens too, including flaxseeds, sesame seeds, hummus, garlic, peanuts, and more.

        Isoflavones are not estrogens, and though they might be similar, they have completely different effects on the human body. They do not affect the sperm count or concentration in men, nor do they affect the size of your testicles or volume of ejaculate (more). Note: A small-scale, preliminary study by Harvard researcher Jorge Chavarro found that processed soy might have some effect on sperm counts of obese men, but even Chavarro cautioned that nothing conclusive has been found (more).

        Phytoestrogens don’t cause breast cancer in women (more).

        Soy infant formula, while not nearly as good as human breast milk, is safe (more and more).

        As you can see, I’ve linked to a few peer-reviewed studies that look at actual evidence, not pseudo-scientific arguments. There are many more that are easily found via Google. If you read or hear people making claims about soy and estrogen, ask for the sources, and ask that they be peer-reviewed studies.

        Has soy been shown to be unhealthy?
        In a word: no.

        While I won’t claim that soy is a magic bullet for getting healthy, it also doesn’t have the dangers that WAPF and others claim it does. In fact, there is no evidence for any of those claims. I won’t get into all the claims, but just touch on a couple of the prevalent:

        1. FALSE: Soy inhibits the digestion of nutrients (anti-nutrients). It’s true that soy, like many plants, have anti-nutrients — but when you cook, ferment, soak, roast, or sprout these plants, you do away with the anti-nutrients. From Dr. Andrew Weil: “There is no scientific data suggesting that soy consumption leads to mineral deficiency in humans.” (more) Fallon, Enig, and the other WAPF writers have failed to provide any evidence at all for this claim (more).

        2. FALSE: Soy increases the risk of cancer. In fact, the evidence shows just the opposite. The Health Professionals Follow-up Study found a 70% reduction in prostate cancer for men who consume soy milk daily. The American Institute for Cancer Research, in collaboration with the World Cancer Research Fund, issued a major report in 1997 that analyzed more than 4,500 research studies, with more than 120 contributors and peer reviewers, including those from the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Agency on Research in Cancer, and the U.S. National Cancer Institute. The report said that “Phytoestrogens are found in high concentrations in soya beans, and have been shown in vitro to exhibit a plethora of different anti-cancer effects, including inhibiting proliferation.” The report found some evidence that soy protects against stomach and prostate cancers. In 2000, Riva Bitrum, the President of Research for the American Institute for Cancer Research, said that “Studies showing consistently that just one serving a day of soyfoods contributes to a reduction in cancer risk are encouraging. Consuming one serving of soyfoods is a step most individuals would not find too difficult to take.” For healthy women, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research, “even two or three servings a day of soyfoods should be fine as one part of a mostly plant-based diet.” (more)

        3. FALSE: Soy causes (insert scare claim here: Alzheimer’s, birth defects, etc.). There isn’t any evidence for any of the scare claims that originate from WAPF. I’m not going to argue them all, but I urge you to read these articles from John Robbins, Dr. Neal Barnard, Syd Baumel, and Dr. Joel Fuhrman — they contain many more sources than I could list here, and they’re based on actual evidence.

        4. Legitimate concerns. Like most foods (meat, milk, peanuts, nuts, berries, chocolate, etc.), there are people with certain conditions that should be more careful. None of the legitimate concerns about soy are causes for alarm. Some people are allergic to soy. There is conflicting evidence about soy’s effect on women who already have breast cancer — some evidence suggests that it might be beneficial, but it’s not conclusive. If you already have a thyroid disorder, excess soy consumption (more than a couple times a day) could affect thyroid function (more). Again, none of these legitimate concerns is anything to be scared about — most people can eat soy a few times a day with no effects, according to the overwhelming mass of evidence, and even those who might have a concern can eat some amounts of soy with no problems.

        So should I eat soy?
        I honestly don’t care if you do or not. My general recommendation is to eat mostly real, whole foods — veggies, fruits, nuts, beans, seeds, a moderate amount of whole grains. I don’t eat meat or dairy for ethical reasons, but if you do eat meat, you should limit your intake of red meat (many studies have shown the health risks of red meat).

        But soy has been eaten in moderation for centuries, and as I said above, has not been shown to be unhealthy. It can be included in a healthy diet — tofu, some soy milk, whole soy beans, tempeh can all be good for you if you mix them in with the other real foods I mentioned above. Soymilk is basically whole soy beans soaked in water and squeezed to produce a milky liquid, and tempeh is actual soybeans fermented.

        I would be cautious about overly processed soy foods — processed soy protein — just as I would any other processed foods. Meaning, don’t be afraid of them, but don’t make them a major part of your diet. Eat real foods instead.

        As a last note to doubters: I welcome your doubt — it’s important not to take my word as final. But instead of rebutting me with scientific-sounding arguments, show me the peer-reviewed studies. And not just one study, as no one study will be proof of anything — show me the mass of research that’s been done. When you look at the entirety of the research that has been done on soy, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear. I’d love to see someone show otherwise.
        Source: http://zenhabits.net/soy/

        Like

      4. Sinead, I still don’t understand why any racially aware White person would want to argue that soy is healthy.

        The farmers that WAPF recommends are small farmers that aren’t a part of any industry. Raw milk farmers have to be small in scale and don’t have the resources to be any kind of industry lobby. The dairy industry is mostly promoting reduced fat pasteurised milk products, which WAPF, and Weston A. Price himself were opposed to.

        The thing about these foods that are high in phytoestrogens is that we don’t need to eat them. People are sensitive to them, not just soy, but those other foods, especially flax, are bad for men. There is just no point telling people who are sensitive to these foods, or concerned about the effect on their hormones, that they should eat these foods, just as I have not told you after finding out that you had trouble with raw milk that you should be drinking it anyway.

        One problem with relying on plants for nutrition is that it restricts the amount of foods one can get nutrients from, if someone doesn’t eat fish and is concerned about omega 3, they will usually eat flax seeds or take some kind of plastic packaged supplement imported from far away lands. If someone develops a sensitivity to particular foods (usually because our ancestors never ate these things, or didn’t eat them in large amounts, our bodies aren’t made to cope with them), then there are even less sources of nutrients for them.

        “Soy infant formula, while not nearly as good as human breast milk, is safe (more and more).” have you even read what you have copied and pasted here?!?!??!?!?!?!!!!!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!!

        On peer reviewed studies, who are the peers? The same mainstream medical establishment that tell us we need vaccines and other modern medicines? The medical establishment that is lobbied from all sides by the sick care industry that wants us to eat badly so that we are unwell and must use their remedies? The same establishment that might also be swayed by the money of the massive soy and processed foods industries?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s