Dairy facts?
October 10, 2007
I am indebted to Greg Miller of the National Dairy Council for sending me the latest fact sheet on dairy myths from the American Dietetic Association. Usually, the Association’s fact sheets have predictable industry sponsors. This one doesn’t seem to but I certainly can understand why the Dairy Council wants it widely circulated. See what you think of it.
Um, not sponsored by Big Milk?
The fact sheet was authored by Dr. Jatinder Bhatia and the disclaimer on the fact sheet states that it reflects the opinion of the author and not the ADA.
So who’s the author who’s still promoting the preferential consumption of chocolate milk to children (despite two cups of 1% chocolate milk having more sugar and calories than a litre of Coca Cola) and the debunked and clearly ridiculous message that dairy is a magic food that augments hypocaloric weight loss?
He’s one of the 7 members of the National Dairy Council 3-A-Day of dairy campaign’s advisory panel.
He’s also the same pediatrician who sits on the AAP panel that recommended that even children with lactose intolerance should be forced to drink their milk and eat dairy. The same AAP that received $100,000 to support the 3-A-Day National Dairy Council campaign.
Sure sounds like Big Milk to me.
Comment by Yoni Freedhoff — October 11, 2007 @ 5:52 am
I didn’t know the specifics of who the author is (thanks, Yoni!), but it sure sounded like plain-copy Big Milk to me. A couple of places I would like to pick on:
1. “There is no conclusive scientific evidence that organic food, including milk, is superior with regard to food safety or nutrition.”
I have a lot of trouble understanding how anyone can make this claim. Setting aside concerns about hormones which, while they are a worry, the science is shaky; the amount of antibiotics consumed by dairy cattle is a clear and present health problem for *everyone*. These antibiotics make it through to the finished product, which means we’re consuming unnecessary antibiotics; even if they didn’t, antibiotics are being used in vast quantities at the CAFOs themselves. Antibiotic-resistant nasties are a well-established problem, and getting worse every year. In what possible sense could this milk be just as safe and healthy as non-antibiotic-ladened milk?
2. “Consuming unpasteurized or “raw” milk presents severe food safety risks which is why the dairy industry, FDA and the Centers for Disease Control strongly support pasteurization. Pasteurization kills the bacteria responsible for diseases such as listeriosis, salmonellosis,
campylobacteriosis, typhoid fever, tuberculosis,
diphtheria, and brucellosis, as well as other bacteria.”
(You had to know I was gonna go after this one.)
Yes, pasteurization is a wildly important innovation in our food safety history. Few things have done more for food safety and health than the advent of pasteurization. In a world without refrigeration, stainless-steel sterilized milking machines, safe hygienic techniques, safe handling methods, and efficient testing techniques for food-bourne pathogens, this was without a doubt a lifesaver, and continues to be in locations where these things are not available.
However, in the modern western world, all of these things currently *are* available, and they should render pasteurization largely unnecessary. However, the role of pasteurization has shifted. Now, rather than a method for ensuring the public safety, it is a way for Big Dairy to keep its livestock in as cheap, and positively disgusting, conditions as possible without posing an overt threat to the public. Would I drink unpasteurized milk from a Big Dairy farm? Not on your life. Will I drink it from the healthy, happy cows up the road from me, raised by a good man who cares about us and our family and practices the best of dairying techniques? Every day.
The rest of it sounds like spin on shaky science to me. I agree with the other things that Yoni said.
Comment by Robyn M. — October 11, 2007 @ 9:20 am
With such a lack of appropriate food safety by so many animal product producers (recalls/outbreaks @ cdc.gov) the article is correct that raw milk is a food safety hazard.
The rest of the article is dairy propaganda:
as if the dairy industry holds the only key to calcium intake, where do the cows get their calcium & protein naturally? They naturally get all of their nutrients from grass, a plant-based diet. What about adding vegan choices to the calcium/protein group of the pyramid? http://www.veganfoodpyramid.com/vegan-pyramid-1280×800.jpg
I thought the weight loss strategy was a joke. They promote chocolate milk despite the added sugar and calories and say if you increase your dairy consumption **as part of a reduced-calorie diet**, you’ll lose weight. You could declare the same thing about blubber– or any food product!
If your body doesn’t tolerate dairy, or if you choose not to consume it for the many other reasons, find a suitable alternative! The industry (and the ADA?)seem to think this product is suitable for everyone despite the various ill effects on people’s health.
The worst part is the American Dietetic Associate logo is included, as if they authored/approved all of the “information”.
Comment by Daniel, Ithaca NY — October 11, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Hi Marion. You must be baiting us to see if we notice what’s wrong with this nutrition facts flyer. I feel like a student in a class you teach, challenged to find the problems in this brochure.
1. It claims the Dietary Guidelines “include dairy as one of the food groups to encourage,” when in fact the Guidelines carefully encourage increased consumption only of low-fat dairy products. This is a key distinction because USDA’s CNPP, which produced the guidelines, is highly concerned about rapidly increasing consumption of high-fat cheese (pizza and so forth).
2. It is misleading about flavored milk. It describes as a myth the following statement: “Flavored milk isn’t good for children due to the sugar content.” Many readers will think the brochure doubts that flavored milk is high in sugar — when it is high in added sugar. The brochure claims that flavored milk delivers the same nutrients as regular milk, which is simply false. The flavored milk delivers more food energy in the form of added sugars, and in a liquid form that many experts would advise against.
3. It describes as a “myth” that “Consuming dairy products can lead to weight gain.” That would be a miracle product indeed! Large amounts of pizza cheese, whole milk, and ice cream — dairy products — can certainly lead to weight gain. While the actual scientific literature is split on whether there might be a small effect of dairy foods when one holds constant calories (a key point!), the brochure cites only one side of that debate: an article from Michael Zemel, who holds a patent (!) on the claim that dairy accelerates weight loss.
4. Does this brochure meet the ADA’s own ethics rules requiring disclosure of financial support?
Parke
Comment by U.S. Food Policy — October 12, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
It’s moments like these that make me think doing this blog has some purpose. Thanks for excellent examples of critical thinking. A+ to all of you!
Comment by Marion — October 12, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Daniel, ummm, are you suggesting that should humans eat grass to get calcium?
I think I’ll stick to my nice raw milk from a source I trust, though I probably get more calcium from home-made bone broths.
Comment by Anna — October 12, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Anna, that’s just silly. You missed the point entirely. Cows get all of their nutrients from a plant based diet of grass, but they are herbivores. We can also prosper on a plant based diet. I would hardly say Americans are prospering on diets high in meat & dairy.
Comment by Daniel, Ithaca NY — October 13, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Daniel, I know that, I was just being silly. Herbivores are great solar energy convertors (sun>grass>protein) and they can live quite well grazing on land not suited for cultivation or other uses (as opposed to confined to polluting feedlots eating grain). When well-managed on a smaller scale based on nature’s biodiverse ecosystems, grazing herbivores are a plus for the environment, too.
But why is it that meat and dairy get fingered as the culprits for bad American health? Long before I ever heard of Taubes I learned that there is a lot more to that “meat and dairy is bad” story than most people understand. I can think of any number of other things that (and perhaps are more likely) to contribute to bad health. And I used to think that grains, legumes, and soy were great substitutes for meat and dairy, too, but I definitely did not prosper on them (in fact my health took a dive while I was young). I did some digging and found there are a lot of misconceptions about their purported benefits. My health became much better when I added pastured meat and dairy back into my diet and cut out all soy and nearly all grains (wish I had discovered this much earlier). My story is a lot like Nina Plancks’, in dietary terms.
I know dairy is a much newer addition to the human diet than meat and non-starchy plants, therefore isn’t essential, but dairy (particularly dairy that is not commercially pasteurized and is produced with care on a small scale from grass-fed herds) can be a healthful part of the diet for those who enjoy it and have a heritage that does well on it.
Comment by Anna — October 13, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
If you’re up for a book on this topic with many many research study citations, check out http://www.TheChinaStudy.com by the now retired Cornell Univ Professor T. Colin Campbell.
Comment by Daniel, Ithaca NY — October 13, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
[…] Drink milk. As much as possible. Even if you’re lactose intolerant!: Nutritionist Marion Nestle posts the latest "fact sheet" on "dairy myths" from the American Dietetic Association, and the comments section rightfully goes to town. (What to Eat) […]
Pingback by The Ethicurean: Chew the right thing. » Blog Archive » Digest - Commentary & Blogs: Immigration bill, Alice Waters on “The View,” annals of pork — October 15, 2007 @ 4:16 am
I did take a long look at the The China Study a while back and decided not to read it, though I do like to read a wide variety of challenging perspectives if I think they are well-researched. I think TCS uses very weak studies and is not worth the time to slog through.
Comment by Anna — October 15, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
This is like an April Fool’s Fact Sheet, where the words “Fact” and “Myth” were swapped. Are you sure this wasn’t created by a team at Fox “News”?
Comment by Jack at Fork & Bottle — October 15, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
What an excellent “fact shit”!
Comment by Nick — October 21, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
what are the good food to eat in canada for the children
Comment by sravya — June 17, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
This is easy. Children don’t need special foods. They should eat the healthy foods you feed yourself, and Canada has plenty of them.
Comment by Marion — June 17, 2008 @ 6:29 pm