Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jeffrey Reel, a writer/lecturer living in Lyndon Center, and general manager of Natural Provisions, in St. Johnsbury. He was previously sustainability manager at the Omega Center for Holistic Studies in Rhinebeck, New York.
[D]airy farmers are suffering from depressed milk prices. It is crippling the dairy industry in the state and creating undue stress for farmers and farm families. There is no effective remedy in sight. What to do about this dilemma? I need to offer what might be seen as a very unpopular suggestion: transitioning away from dairy to vegetables and other crops.
According to data from the USDA, Americans, on average, drink 37 percent less milk today than they did in 1970, although the consumption of cheese continues to rise. The number of Americans consuming dairy products will continue to decline, and there are healthy reasons for that.
There are two basic considerations: the value of breast milk versus cow’s milk when nourishing infants and toddlers; and the value of cow’s milk after the weaning process occurs – that is to say, our lifelong love affair with cheese and other dairy products.
Evolution: There is a mountain of evidence showing that breast milk is highly favorable over cow’s milk for the very youngest, and it can be traced back to the inherent wisdom of the evolutionary process. When a calf is born in the wild, its survival is found in the contents of its mother’s milk. In order to survive, a cow must quickly gain hundreds of pounds within just a few weeks’ time. This is why cow’s milk (relative to human breast milk) is high in protein, so the calf can quickly add bulk. This also explains why children are taller and larger today than they have historically been: not healthier, but larger.
The weaning process is an intrinsic part of our evolution and it tells us much about what our nutritional needs are and how those needs change over time. The forces shaping evolution dictate that human survival depends not upon bulk, but brain. This is why breast milk (relative to cow’s milk) is high in carbohydrates, because the main food for the brain – and brain development – is glucose. Simply put, nourishing an infant with breast milk ensures the best possible food for brain and body development.
Into what food category do dairy products belong? The most common misconception about milk is that it is considered an item of food like, say, a vegetable or a fruit. It is even misidentified as a food group like vegetables and fruits, meats and grains. But – unlike all these other foods and food groups – milk represents an entire diet – for an infant. Mother’s milk is the only food an infant needs for perfect nutrition; and it is the only food that it can eat during his/her earliest development for optimum health. Blood as its food source in utero: blood pooling in breasts and converted to milk in infancy. What replaces milk after weaning takes place? Everything! Beans, grains, fruits, vegetables, etc. In short, we evolve away from milk into a chiefly vegetable- and grain-based diet.
A study published in the peer-reviewed PLOS One showed the addictive nature of cheese and other dairy products. The addiction is attributed to the presence of casein in these foods, a protein present in the milk of all mammals. During digestion, casein releases opiates called casomorphins. How soothing! But why would nature want milk to be addictive? For one simple and fundamental reason: it makes certain that newborns desire it, which ensures not only their survival as individuals, but the survival of the species.
Osteoporosis. A major misconception about osteoporosis is that it is caused by the insufficient intake of dietary calcium. But researchers are discovering bone loss is due chiefly to the consumption of too much protein as well as foods that leach calcium from the body; and, ironically, eating foods rich in dairy can contribute to that condition.
How? The American diet leans heavily in the direction of: excess consumption of meat; excess protein in general; excess food in general; and excess protein-rich dairy foods (cow’s milk has been aptly described as “liquid meat”). Each of these four factors contributes to chronic over-acidic blood. The body addresses this condition by neutralizing acid blood with “blood buffers,” one of them being blood calcium (as distinct from the calcium stored in bones and teeth). The body then neutralizes the acids that occur in our bodies and flushes them out, along with the calcium, via the kidneys.
Human evolution allowed for ample amounts of blood calcium as a blood buffer based upon the quantity and quality of foods we evolved to eat over hundreds of thousands of generations. But in today’s standard American diet, this condition is a chronic one given the four reasons cited above, which leads to the long-term loss of blood calcium, which leads to calcium depletion. The body then moves to its secondary source of calcium, drawing it out from our bones and teeth. And it is much easier for the body to draw out the calcium than it is to replace it. And so begins the process of bone loss leading to osteoporosis. In addition, many foods found in the standard American diet leach calcium from our bodies. These foods include carbonated beverages, alcohol, caffeine, salt, tobacco, aspirin, and over- and under-the-counter drugs.
Advertisers would lead us to believe that Americans are not consuming enough dairy products. How is that possible? Consider the amount of dairy we continue to consume in this society, from glasses of milk, to the milk in our cereal, ice cream, yogurt, cottage cheese, and the soft and hard cheeses … (our obesity level reflects this level of consumption). American women consume an average of two pounds of milk per day for their entire lives, yet 30 million American women experience osteoporosis. If dairy foods effectively prevented osteoporosis, the condition should not exist in our culture. We are a nation obsessed with dairy, yet osteoporosis remains commonplace.
What would our society look like if it wasn’t swimming in milk and dairy products? One need only look halfway around the globe and not very far back in time for an answer. Dairy cows did not exist on the islands of Japan prior to World War II. No milk, no milk products, no milk consumption. And a negligible rate of osteoporosis. It wasn’t until the introduction of milk during the American occupation following WWII, along with the forced introduction of standard American dietary practices, did the rate of osteoporosis begin to rise. Today, Japan’s rate of osteoporosis approaches that of Americans (along with obesity, allergies, asthma and degenerative diseases). The experience in China mirrors that of Japan as well.
The “side effects” of dairy products. As with all foods recommended for human consumption that are not really suitable for health, dairy foods come with their own list of “side effects,” which include, but not limited to: Crohn’s disease, allergies and asthma, ear infections, colic and constipation, obesity, heart disease, diabetes and arthritis and various cancers from breast cancer to prostate. The problem is that there is no such thing as “side effects” in nature. It is a human misconception based upon the application of principles that are perfect in nature but imperfectly worked out by man. Foods best suited for human nutrition don’t have side effects. Consider all animals in their natural habitats: they all evolved with foods perfectly suited for their needs to maintain health and natural resistance. Bees have their nectar, deer have their browse, birds have their seeds and berries … and each food an animal eats in the wild is completely suited to it, benefiting it in countless ways, harming it in none. Humans, too, have been included in this beautiful and intricate design.
That is to say, we don’t consume a food because it contains, say, one or two elements considered essential to our health. After all, we could justify eating most everything based on that shortsighted point of view. Each and every food suited for human nutrition benefits us in countless ways and – of paramount importance – harms us in none. Witness mother’s milk and infant nutrition.
Bones. Use them or lose them. One of the best ways to maintain strong bones is to use them (walking, running, playing, aerobic exercise, weight lifting, etc.), but most people in industrialized countries today spend most of the lives off their feet. Our bones evolved over thousands of generations to support the full weight and motion of our bodies. Our ancestors lived physically active lives; their livelihoods depended upon their physical strength, and their bones responded favorably to bearing the weight and stress. The body responds to bones being subjected to force by adding bone mass. That same bone mass diminishes when stressors are removed (witness the dramatic bone loss that occurs in our astronauts after just a few months of living in a weightless environment (10 percent over a six-month period), and there is no shortage of dairy in their diet).
Milk is an American institution, and proponents of the product are quick to respond that it is foolish, even reckless, to discourage its consumption. And I am not making the case that non-dairy milk products are competing nutritionally against cow’s milk. They are not meant to, although many are fortified, just as milk products are. They do serve as delicious and healthy alternatives in recipes calling for milk as well as non-dairy yogurts, dressings, cheeses and creamers, all without milk’s side effects.
We should make it a priority to provide financial, technical and emotional support to our dairy farmers to transition successfully away from an industry that hurts not only our health but our immediate environment as reflected in the state’s clean water crisis. It is either that or sit back and simply witness the decline of livelihoods, our bodies of water, and our bodies. That’s not a viable option.
