Margarine is much worse than butter

In the 1970s, I was instructed to swap from butter to margarine. Fortunately, I did not like the taste of margarine and, over the years, the more research I conducted on the topic the more I realised that we were being lead astray and even lied to about this. Today, when I ask any of my audiences, sometimes in the hundreds, “Who thinks margarine is better for you than butter?” I rarely get a positive response. It seems most people already know that margarine is a dangerous substitute.

It appears that there is no scientific evidence that margarine is healthier than butter. In fact, evidence suggests the exact opposite is true. This is summed up first of all in one of my earlier articles that showed saturated fat is not the demon it is made out to be and may even be associated with reduced heart attack (another myth shattered). At least that is what the biggest and best studies show. Furthermore, we consume many more Omega 6 (vegetable) oils today than our ancestors did and this is having a negative impact on our health. These oils are not just in our margarine but also hidden in most of our food. We ate margarine for 50 years thinking it was made up of so-called “good fats” only to find out it was laden with the deadliest form of fat: trans fats. Finally, there is emerging evidence that margarine may not be good for our health, with or without trans fats, and is nowhere near a natural food; the push to sell more margarine has come from organisations like the Heart Foundations around the world and branches of margarine companies with strong vested interests in promoting margarine sales.

I think one of the best things to have happened to the Australian cuisine is Master Chef. It has inspired a whole generation to go back to the kitchen and start cooking again. It has also encouraged the increased use of butter over vegetable oils, something the Heart Foundation and the margarine manufacturers did not like so they had to come up with campaigns to sway people back to margarine. Interestingly one of the foundation’s ploys was to create, through a public relations company, a group called “Mums United” which pretends to be a grassroots mothers campaign against evil butter. According to David Gillespe (Sweet Poison) and the “duck test” of inductive reasoning, “It walks like a margarine advertisement and quacks like a margarine advertisement, so guess what it I think it is?” And the margarine companies fund it! Some of the group’s tactics have included offering financial support to people who pledged not to eat butter. So much for it being a grassroots organisation. It seems that margarine interests have taken some of the old tactics taught to us by the tobacco industry and big drug companies.

I want to make it very clear that I have no vested interests in anything other than people’s health and the truth.

Various heart associations around the world recommend increasing Omega 6 (vegetable) oil consumption and reducing saturated fats, based on flawed studies that have been seriously questioned due to data manipulation. This includes the omission of relevant trials with unfavourable outcomes—that is, leaving out any negative studies ^1,2,3 and including studies that combine both Omega 3 (fish oils, which are good for you) and Omega 6 consumption together under the title of “polyunsaturated fats.” The associations even included poorly done studies as long as the studies showed the desired results. This type of publication bias is well known in the research literature particularly with big drug companies trying to show that their drugs work better than they really do.

Margarine is far from being a natural product—well, as much as you can claim that plastic is natural. The major components of margarine are “vegetable” oils, obtained from foods such as sunflower seeds, rapeseed, or potentially genetically modified canola and soya beans. These oils are usually extracted using the application of pressure, heat and possibly solvents and then treated with sodium hydroxide to “neutralise” certain fats in the oil. It is then bleached, filtered and steam-treated to produce what is essentially a colourless, flavourless murky looking liquid. The liquid is converted into a solid at room temperature through esterifcation, which uses high temperature and pressure, along with enzymes or acids, to harden the oil—this is also called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation produces trans fats that are strongly linked with heart disease, cancer and other chronic illnesses. The final product is coloured and flavoured with various agents to make it feel and look like butter. Then finally ingredients like plant sterols and stanols and alpha linolenic acid is added to make it appear healthy. The finished product is not natural or healthy.

Plant stanols and sterols are added to reduce cholesterol. However, overwhelming evidence now shows cholesterol is just a poor indicator of heart attack, not the cause ⁴. It is just the warning sign or, if I can use an analogy, like a fire alarm in your home, it is not the problem itself, but a warning about the problem. You can get plenty of stanol and sterols in nuts, beans and seeds, which are not only natural but also full of other healthful benefits including vitamins, antioxidants, minerals and so much more and reduce all forms chronic illness. Margarine manufacturers can trumpet the presence of “heart-healthy” Omega 3 fats on the label, however they are putting plant-based Omega 3 fats (alpha linolenic acid) that do not act like Omega 3 from fish sources. They still have to be converted in our body to fish-like Omega 3s. It is also questionable whether they will be oxidised or not and therefore of any value. Adding a nutrient to toxic food does not make it healthy. Do you really believe the advertising?

Margarine is a major source of trans fatty acids, the intake of which has risen since the early 20th century. Trans fatty acids are synthetic fats produced as a byproduct of the hydrogenation of liquid vegetable oils, making them into solid margarine. An abundance of data indicates that consumption of trans fatty acids increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), cancer, diabetes and other chronic illnesses. Margarine companies are now obliged to list the amount of trans fats on the side of the packet. Until recently however, margarine has been the single biggest source of these very toxic fats.

In a study of women, long-term margarine and trans fat consumption was associated with a 67% increased risk of heart disease ⁵. The decrease in intake of trans fatty acids in Denmark saw a 50% reduction in the number of deaths from ischemic heart disease ⁶. A recent study found that trans fatty acids promote cardiovascular disease by triggering inflammatory processes in the cells lining blood vessels ⁷. Increased intake of trans fatty acids has also been linked with an increase in the risk of colorectal tumours by about 86% ⁸. The potentially damaging effects of trans fats may also be passed from a mother to her child during breast feeding and can lead to an increase in cardiac insulin resistance when the kids become adults ⁹.

During the past 150 years, the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of agribusiness with processed foods, grain-fattened livestock, and hydrogenation of vegetable fats have considerably reduced the available content of Omega 3 fatty acids and increased that of Omega 6 fatty acids. While Omega 6 and 3 oils are considered essential fatty acids, the research is now showing that it is important to get the correct balance of the fats. An imbalance leads to various metabolic diseases. Western diets are now deficient in Omega 3 fatty acids and are laden with excessive amounts of Omega 6 fatty acids compared with the diet on which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns were established. Our diets now have 14 to 20 times more Omega 6 (vegetable oil) than Omega 3 fatty acids. This imbalance is now linked with diseases such as heart attack, stroke, cancer, obesity, insulin resistance, asthma, arthritis, depression, ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease and even premature ageing. The ideal balance is less than 4:1 or even 1:1 Omega 6 and 3, respectively.

Omega 6 oils such as corn, safflower, cottonseed, sunflower, and soya are now in nearly all our foods. Apart from the obvious consumption of vegetable oils and margarine you buy in the supermarket—which I hope you are now not going to buy—Omega 6 oils are hidden in most foods. You will find vegetable oils in just about every processed and semi-processed food including bread, cakes, and breakfast cereals and in lots of the plant-based drinks like almond or soya milk the main ingredient is often vegetable oil. All the takeaway foods, frozen and packaged dinners have Omega 6 oils. Even the “new” Mediterranean diet is laden with Omega 6 oils. When you buy olives, pesto sauce, sundried tomatoes or anything soaking in oil it is now vegetable oil in which it is soaked, not olive oil because vegetable oil is cheaper, unless you go to Italy where most foods are still soaked in olive oil. It is almost impossible to get away from the excess of Omega 6 oils. Time to read the labels! Factory produced eggs have 20 times more Omega 6 than Omega 3 compared to free-range eggs, which have a ratio of 1:1. Similarly, grain-fed beef (which I do not recommend you eat) has around 20:1 Omega 6 to Omega 3 oils because the cows are fed grains rich in Omega 6 oils. Alpha linolenic acid is found in the grass and is converted into the important Omega 3 oils by the animals. It is found only in grass-fed animals. Grass-fed cows are also a lot less stressed and have as a result lower levels of inflammation.

On the topic of animals fats, I have highlighted in earlier articles that despite claims by the Heart Foundation there is no scientific evidence to suggest that saturated fat through dairy consumption is associated with increased heart attack. By contrast, in a 16-year prospective study of 1,529 adult Australians, researchers found a possible beneficial association between intake of full-fat dairy and cardiovascular mortality ¹⁰. Whoops… the Heart Foundation got it wrong again.

By contrast, the Framingham study, which followed people for 20 years (a very long and comprehensive study) and recorded heart attack incidence, found margarine intake increased coronary heart disease in men ¹¹. The scientists in their very conservative language wrote, “These data offer modest support to the hypothesis that margarine intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.” Not the opposite. In the second ten-year period of the study, the group eating the most margarine had 77% more heart attacks than the group eating none.

Studies that investigated increasing the amount of Omega 6 without a subsequent increase in animal-based Omega 3 (fish oil) consistently found an increase in coronary heart disease (CHD) and all-cause mortality. In an early study, published in 1965, researchers found that people consuming corn oil, a rich source of Omega 6, had a 4.64 times (over 400%) increased risk for both chronic heart disease and death from all causes ¹². In the conservative language of scientists, the authors of the study concluded that corn oil is “possibly harmful.” In another study, in which participants consumed more safflower oil and a safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine, participants had a 49% increased risk of death from all causes including a 91% increase from chronic heart disease and 96% from CVD ¹³.

In one study specifically on Omega 6 consumption in more than 9,000 people, the risk of non-fatal heart attack and death from coronary heart disease was significantly increased among women consuming the n-6 specific polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) diet for one year or less ¹⁴. Women consuming this n-6 specific PUFA diet for any duration had non-significant trends to increased risk of non-fatal heart attack and coronary heart disease and any cardiovascular event including death and stroke ¹⁴. In fact the Lyon Diet Heart Study found that after follow up of 27 months, non-fatal heart attack and coronary heart disease death and overall mortality were 73% and 70% lower in the experimental group who consumed lower Omega 6 oils and replaced vegetable oils with olive oil. This study also demonstrated that lowering linoleic acid (Omega 6 vegetable oil) below 50% is not harmful and may even be beneficial, producing a profound risk reduction in coronary heart disease.

A recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigating polyunsaturated Omega 6 oil consumption (vegetable oils and margarine) found that there is absolutely no scientific justification for recommending the increased consumption of Omega 6 oils ². Or, to quote their conclusion, “Advice to specifically increase n-6 PUFA intake … is unlikely to provide the intended benefits, and may actually increase the risks of CHD and death.” The study found for non-fatal myocardial infarction (heart attack) and death from coronary heart disease there was an increased risk of 13% for diets with increased Omega 6. The studies that substituted Omega 6 for saturated fatty acids without simultaneously increasing Omega 3 oils also produced an increase in risk of death. It seems the vegetable oils are just as bad as the trans fats and what we are really lacking are the Omega 3 fish oils.

Arachidonic acid is produced in the body from too much Omega 6 and produces chemical messengers that lead to inflammation in the body called eicosanoids and cytokines. The increase in linoleic acid (Omega 6) has been shown to increase the oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol) ¹⁵. There is nothing wrong with cholesterol until it is oxidised. The evidence from animal studies also shows that a high linoleic acid diet can promote certain cancers ¹⁶ and other inflammatory diseases. In a study of 203,193 men and women, increased intakes of Omega 6 fatty acid (linoleic acid) doubled the risk of ulcerative colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, which has seen a rapid increase during recent decades. By contrast the highest intakes of Omega 3 were associated with 77% reduction in the risk of the disease ¹⁷. Omega 6 fatty acids are present in the cell membrane of colon cells in the form of arachidonic acid. This can be metabolised to chemical messengers in the body called prostaglandin E2, leukotriene B4 and thromboxane A2, all of which are associated with inflammation. On the other hand, Omega 3 fatty acids, including docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) may prevent colonic inflammation.

There is also research showing that too much Omega 6 oil is contributing to premature ageing. Telomeres, which are in all our cells, are thought to be markers of our ageing because they reflect cumulative oxidative stress and inflammation. The shorter they are, the more we have aged. Because the metabolites of Omega 6 promote inflammation, it is believed that an increase in Omega 6 fatty acid content in our diet decreases the leukocyte telomere length ^18,19 and hence speeds up the ageing process.

It is time to rethink our fat consumption. The research shows that fat in itself is not bad—in fact, it is essential and the move away from fat has lead to a more obese and sicker population. What we need to do however is decrease our consumption of processed oils like margarine and vegetable oils and increase our Omega 3 fish oils along with Omega 9 oils, including olive oil.

References

1.     Ramsden 2009;

2.     Ramsden et al. 2010,

3.     Ramsden et al. 2011

4.     Dingle 2011 The Great Cholesterol Deception

5.     Willett et al. 1993

6.     Stender and Dyerberg 2004

7.     Harvey et al 2008

8.     Vinikoor et al. 2010

9.     Osso et al. 2008

10. Bonthuis et al. 2010

11. Gillman 1997

12. Rose et al. 1965

13. Woodhill et al. 1978

14. Frantz et al. 1989

15. Tsimikas et al. 1999

16. Welsh 1992

17. Hart 2008

18. Kang 2010;

19. Kiecolt-Glaser 2012

Asthma, a different perspective

Asthma is one of the most common respiratory diseases. In Australia, New Zealand, the UK, US, Canada, many European countries, and now in many Asian countries, asthma is on the increase and has reached proportions of one in four children and one in 10 adults. The asthma rates in these countries has doubled in the last two decades and fortunately they seem to be leveling off but as other countries become westernised the rates are quickly catching up to our levels.

Asthma is a potentially life threatening and debilitating respiratory disease. Not only do asthmatics have to face potentially fatal attacks, but they may also have to deal with headaches, depression, mood swings, hyperactivity, learning difficulties, chronic fatigue and allergy related afflictions such as allergic rhinitis and eczema.

It’s unlikely that the genetics of the population has had an influence in such a short period of time, but it is likely that a degree of genetic susceptibility is being triggered by a combination of modern factors, perhaps the epigenetics factor I wrote about a few months ago. The rise of modern, Western society has brought with it many changes. Many of these appear innocent when considered in isolation, but when contemplated in combination, they present a formidable threat to our health and the health of our children.

The most probable cause of asthma and many other modern child health problems is a combination of Diet, Environment, Attitude and Lifestyle (DEAL) factors. To wait for definitive scientific proof that may never come, is to put a growing number of kids at severe risk. Asthma is not just an inconvenience, it kills.

The ‘westernised’ diet seems to be a contributing factor. Because asthma involves an immune response to various trigger substances, decreases in the average weekly consumption of fresh fruit, green and mixed vegetables and an increase in the amount of processed foods has all been linked with increasing asthma rates. And nowhere is this more evident than in Asian countries where the diet is rapidly becoming westernised. The ‘new’ diet provides fewer antioxidants, fewer minerals such as magnesium, selenium and zinc, and fewer vitamins, including Vitamins A, B, C and E - all of which are considered to be necessary co-factors in the immune function. The modern diet is also very low in methyl donors such as folate and vitamin B6 which may be having an impact on how the genes for asthma are expressed.

A number of studies have shown decreased minerals such as selenium and zinc in subgroups of asthma sufferers. There is also evidence that people with reduced intake of fresh fruit and vegetables have lower ventilatory functions (they take in less air with each breath) and other studies which link diets low in fruit and vegetables with increased rates of asthma, and more severe symptoms. There’s growing evidence of the benefits of vitamin, mineral and antioxidant supplements on the severity of asthmatic symptoms. For example, the essential fatty acids (EFA’s), particularly an increase in omega 3 oils have been shown to reduce the incidence of asthma in children in some studies. In the old days parents used to feed their kids cod liver oil and kids would eat home grown vegetables and free range eggs, all of which are a source of EFAs.

A number of studies have also shown a relationship between asthma and the mother’s eating habits. Children born to women who supplement with omega 3 oils are less likely to develop asthma. Some studies have also found reduced symptoms and rates of asthma in children who were breast-fed for longer as infants. The precise reason for this is unknown, but is probably due to the protective effect of breast milk and the detrimental effects of cows’ milk. Apart from other essential nutrients in human milk, it’s a rich source of EFAs, choline and important immune factors. And there is growing evidence mounting over the use of cows milk and increasing allergies and food intolerances.

Some of the food colourings and other food additives that our kids consume in relatively large quantities are also linked with asthma attacks. Ones that are particularly relevant include the colours 102, 110, 127, the sulphur preservatives (220- 230, sulphur dioxide, sodium sulphite and bisulphite potassium bisulphite and sodium and potassium metabisulphite) and MSG (621).

Investigations throughout the world confirm a link between asthma and a person’s sensitisation to indoor allergens, such as dust mites, pet fur and feathers, insects and mould. Nevertheless, these allergens have probably always been present in houses although the quantities of allergens and degree of exposure may have increased in many homes.

We have made our buildings more airtight through changes in design, weatherproofing and the use of air conditioning. This traps allergens and chemicals inside buildings, whereas in older homes there is greater airflow. The constant temperature and humidity also produce ideal conditions for dust mite and fungal growth. These conditions are further exacerbated by the fact that many people keep all their doors and window closed and that we spend 90% of our time indoors.
A number of studies have found a strong relationship between house dampness, fungal growth and respiratory illness. This is not only from obvious dampness such as condensation on windowpanes but also the amount of time spent in the shower and bath. Mould and mould spores are a major problem for asthmatics. Mould can usually be controlled by increasing the ventilation in bathrooms and other wet areas. Fibre cleaning is very effective in contolling mould and doesn’t involve the use of toxic chemicals.

Allergen avoidance, particularly for mould, dust mite allergens and pollen, has been shown to reduce both the onset of asthma and asthmatic symptoms. This avoidance appears to be especially important during the first twelve months of life, when the immune system is maturing. Some research also suggests the avoidance of substances that may cause reactions, even though not related to immune function . This includes some biologically active chemicals and some medications such as aspirin, sulphur dioxide, metabisulphate, coal tar dyes and flavour enhancers, such as MSG.

By contrast, while many pets produce problematic allergens, there’s increasing evidence to show that having a pet may offer some protective effect. In fact living on a farm and close to animals generally confirs some protection against asthma
Probably of greater importance is that we have dramatically increased our use of synthetic chemicals, which at higher doses are linked with asthma and respiratory disease. More and more studies are showing this link with even lower levels of exposure to chemicals, such as those found in new or renovated homes. Cleaning chemicals, spray cans, deodorants and perfumes are all increasingly being linked with contributing to the cause of asthma and potential asthma attacks. The evidence is also mounting that these chemicals may be influencing our genetic expression through epigenetics. The overuse of these chemicals may also be contributing to what is called the “hygeine hypothesis” which is that we are not being exposed to enough microorganisms and therefore not stimulating the immune system at the right stages of growth.

Unflued gas heaters (the ones that don’t have a flue or chimney) and other appliances are linked with increased respiratory illness. Many countries and some states in Australia have banned these appliances. There are now dozens of studies showing associated health problems.

There is little doubt about the effect of direct smoking and passive smoking on asthma and a litany of other diseases. While more and more people go outside to smoke, there are others who still expose their children to this cocktail of very toxic substances. Many of the thousands of chemicals found in tobacco smoke are toxic. Even worse, parents who smoke are showing their kids through their actions that smoking is okay. If you smoke you are teaching your kids to do the same, despite what you might say to them. As the old adage says, “Actions speak louder than words”.

Attitude is important because not only is it likely to reduce the risk of illnesses, but determines what an individual will do to prevent or reduce illness. Attitude is closely linked with education, the willingness to learn more and the desire to look after yourself. This does not mean ignoring the medical system. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. It means working with your doctor and asking lots of questions. Remember asthma can be a life threatening illness, so you need to understand it and take it seriously.

Our lifestyle has changed enormously over the last four decades. The structure of the family unit and how families interact, our level of physical activity and our dependence upon the car, television and computers have brought different pressures and demands. Many of these factors have negative impacts on our health and our ability to deal with asthma. Physical activity, breath control and stress management are essential for an asthmatic’s development of a healthy lifestyle. I have seen many instances where implementation of these has not only improved how a person deals with asthma but also reduced the severity and frequency of symptoms. For a small number of asthmatics strenuous physical activity can initiate an asthma attack. Be active but also understand your limits.

Unfortunately, despite the growing scientific evidence, the medical paradigm tends to prevail in our society that we can’t do anything about asthma because we don’t have the definitive proof yet of the causes. Science on the other hand shows a different perspective, that there are probably many contributing factors that need to be addressed and all can help just a little. Apart from this also being a common sense approach it also helps with many other health issues not just asthma, so isn’t it worth trying?

Author of "The DEAL for Happier Healthier Kids, a Parents Guide to 21st Century Health"

Milk, the poison

In my other blog on milk I explained why milk is not a great source of calcium for humans. Now it is time to look at the health problems associated with milk.

Evidence has been steadily mounting during the past few decades of the potential negative effects of dairy on human health from colic and gut disorders to cancer. Milk is associated with many digestive disorders, poor gut health, food intolerances and allergies. Many children develop food intolerances to milk which, at the very least, cause overproduction of mucous and lots of phlegm and runny noses. Worse, these intolerances can cause severe allergic symptoms. This is often related to the negative impact dairy products have on the gut. Associated with this I have seen colic clear up in many infants once they are taken off dairy.

Lactose intolerance is a “condition” in which the body cannot digest the sugar efficiently (or at all), leading to poor gut health and excess mucous, acid and gas production and varying degrees of abdominal discomfort 1. People with lactose intolerance also experience reduced absorption in the gastrointestinal system 2. Approximately 75% of the world’s population (particularly in Eastern countries such as China, India, Africa and in minority populations such as Australian Aboriginals and Native Americans) has a level of lactose intolerance 1, and it is now generally accepted that this “condition” is actually the norm for the human species. It is more prevalent in Asians (about 85%) and African Americans (about 50%) than Caucasians (about 10%). It should be highlighted that the inability to digest lactose is exacerbated by pasteurisation destroying all the enzymes naturally found in milk that would normally help with digestion of the milk.

A food allergy is an abnormal immunological response due to a sensitisation to a food or food component. It represents an important health problem, especially in industrialised countries where it has been estimated to affect about 1% to 2% of the adult population and up to 8% of children below the age of three 3. As far as statistics go, cow’s milk allergy can be considered one of the most common food allergies, especially in early childhood with an incidence of 2% to 3% in the first years of life 4.

If an allergic reaction develops it is not always due to the dietary habits of the infant. A baby can be exposed to the proteins that cause an allergic response. Breast milk from mothers who have consumed products containing cow’s milk might be another threat for the development of cow’s milk allergy due to the absorption of cow proteins, their passage through the gut mucosa and their release in human milk 4. Antibody reactivity to bovine casein as well as to casein and lactoglobulin is detectable only in bottle-fed infants and not in infants who are exclusively breast-fed5.

Hormones and growth factors

Many of the bioactive components of milk contain hormones and growth factors. Milk contains more than 50 hormones and growth factors 6. The consumption of cow’s milk can result in significant hormonal changes and disrupt the balance of insulin, growth hormones and insulin-like growth factors (IGF) 7. Insulin Growth Factor One (IGF-1) is intended to assist suckling calves to grow and produce new tissue through the prolific reproduction of cells 8. However, when this hormone is introduced to the adult human body, which is no longer growing, cells may be encouraged to reproduce at the wrong time or place, providing the basis for cancerous growth 9. Cow’s milk and human’s milk share the same amino acid sequence of IGF and therefore the cow form is capable of binding to human IGF 10. Numerous studies have shown a link between these hormone levels and levels of IGF in prepubertal boys and girls 11 and as a result such levels have been positively correlated with increased height 12,13. The levels of IGF-1 in dairy milk may have increased significantly with the increase in milk production per cow since the beginning of the agricultural revolution. This problem is compounded in the US where they can add IGFs to milking cows to increase milk production. There is some scientific debate whether homogenisation allows the hormone to be digested and consequently reach the bloodstream 14.

Cancer

Insulin Growth Factor One (IGF-1) has been linked with numerous types of cancer, including prostate and breast cancer 15,16 and cow’s milk consumption has been strongly associated with an increase in hormone-dependent cancers 17. A large study, a meta-analysis, found that high intake of dairy products and calcium was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Researchers found men with the highest intake of dairy products were more likely to develop prostate cancer than men with the lowest intake 18. Dose-response analyses suggested that dairy product and calcium intakes were each positively associated with the risk of prostate cancer. That is, the more dairy consumed, the higher the rates of prostate cancer 19,20,21. One study found a 5.1 times higher risk of advanced stage prostate cancer 22 while another found that milk consumption was most strongly associated with mortality rates of prostate cancer 19. A strong link has also been found between dairy consumption and testicular cancer 24,25,26.

A study of 3,300 cancer patients and 1,300 control subjects 27 comparing milk and dairy intake between the two groups found a significant association between the exclusive consumption of whole milk and increased risk of certain cancers (e.g., oral, stomach, rectum, lung, breast, etc.). Most of the subjects in the control group were drinkers of reduced fat milk or non-fat milk, linking the reduction in saturated fat to a reduction in oral and cervical cancers. A number of other studies have linked dairy consumption with breast cancer 28-32 as well as ovarian cancer 33.

Diabetes mellitus (type 1)

Cow’s milk-based infant formulas and cow’s milk consumption in childhood have been found to promote the development of type 1 diabetes mellitus and other immune-mediated or neurological diseases. The introduction of cow’s milk-based infant formula within the first three months of life is associated with increased risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus 34-38 and there are more than 100 studies linking early exposure to dairy milk to the onset of diabetes mellitus (type 1) in children who are genetically prone to the disease 37-43. The evidence for this association is overwhelming. Furthermore, in animal models of type 1 diabetes mellitus, cow’s milk proteins have been proven to lead to the development of diabetes.

In a study on newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes, researchers found that the children in the study had antibodies that were primed to attack cow’s milk proteins. These antibodies had apparently risen in response to cow proteins in their infant formula, but the antibodies were also capable of attacking the body’s insulin-producing cells. The antibodies that arose to destroy the cow’s milk protein ended up attacking the children’s insulin-producing cells. The infant’s immune system recognises these bovine proteins as foreign and forms antibodies to attack them. Unfortunately, these antibodies attack not only the cow proteins but also the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas.

There is so much concern about this that a worldwide study has begun in which children are being kept off all cow’s milk to see whether diabetes can be prevented 7.

Multiple sclerosis

Evidence dating back to 1976 44 shows that cow’s milk consumption is linked with the development of multiple sclerosis (MS) 45-48. One study of dairy consumption in 27 countries and 29 populations around the world found a strong correlation between liquid cow’s milk and MS prevalence; interestingly no such correlation was found with cream, butter or cheese 42.

A number of cow’s milk proteins have now been shown to be targeted by the immune cells of people with MS 7. Further, injecting the proteins into experimental animals has caused lesions to appear in the central nervous systems of the animals. Other researchers have demonstrated how certain proteins in cow’s milk mimic part of myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein, the part of myelin thought to initiate the autoimmune reaction in MS49.

Parkinson’s disease

Milk has also been linked to Parkinson’s disease (PD). Researchers found that among more than 130,000 U.S. adults followed for nine years, those who consumed the largest amount of dairy foods had an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease 50. Men with the highest levels of dairy consumption were 60% more likely to develop the disease than those who consumed the least amounts of dairy, particularly milk 50-54. This supports earlier findings about dairy intake and the development of PD: the same authors studied men with high dairy consumption and found that those men had an 80% higher risk. Women with moderate dairy intake were also found to be in the high-risk range for PD.

A study found that Japanese-American men in Honolulu, Hawaii who consumed more than 0.5 litres of milk per day had a 130% higher risk of PD than men who did not drink milk 52. In a study in which a total of 128 participants developed Parkinson’s disease, the risk of Parkinson’s disease increased as the amount of milk consumed each day rose. Heavy milk drinkers—those who consumed more than 16 ounces (454g) per day—were more than twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease than non-milk drinkers 52.

Heart disease

Epidemiological evidence suggests that per capita consumption of milk proteins and milk is associated with national mortality rates from heart attack or stroke 55-58. Although it does not appear to be associated with the saturated fat consumption.

Acne

Milk consumption results in significantly elevated blood levels of IGF-1 in prepubertal and pubertal individuals as well as young adults which is associated with acne 59-62.

Not a great food

Cow’s milk is not a great food for humans. What I have presented here is just a small fraction of the scientific literature highlighting the problems with milk. Perhaps in the future we will see health warnings on milk containers. Unfortunately, we have been sold a deceptive message for more than 50 years so everyone believes that “milk does a body good.”

No other animal on this planet consumes milk beyond infancy or another animals milk. Despite this humans are the only animal that suffer form such high rates of chronic illness. To complicate this equation even further we destroy many of the healthful qualities of milk by pasteurisation including enzymes and antioxidants, we then mix the fat and liquid together through homeginastion and we still call it a natural food. What beneficial qualities milk might have in very small quantities, they no longer exist when we process them out. Then add sugar and chemical colours to make flavoured milk and I could not think of a more toxic compound.

References

1. Goldberg and Folta 2002
2. Smith et al. 1995).
3. Helm 2000
4. Monaci et al. 2006
5. Moetini et al. 2000
6. Michaelidoua and Steijns 2006
7. Jelenek 2010
8. Blum 2009
9. Fürstenberger and Senn 2002
10. Francis et al. 2008
11. Edwards et al. 2007
12. Wiley 2005
13. Berkley et al. 2009
14. Daniel 2007).
15. Key et al. 2003
16. Shaneyfelt et al. 2001
17. Ganmaa and Sato 2005
18. Gao et al. 2005
19. Ganmaa et al. 2002
20. Qina et al. 2004
21. Tominaga and Kuroishi 1997
22. Campbell and Campbell 2004
23. Ganmaa et al. 2002
24. Davies et al. 1996
25. Garner et al. 2003
26. Strang et al. 2006
27. Mettlin et al. (1990
28. Gaskill et al. 1979
29. Stocks 1970
30. La Vecchia 1993
31. Le et al. 1986
32. Ursinl et al. 1990
33. Larsson et al. 2004).
34. Harrison and Honeyman 1999
35. Scott 1990
36. Elliot and Laugesen 2003
37. Goldberg and Folta 2002
38. Laugesen and Elliot 2003
39. Wasmuth et al. 1999
40. Thorsdottir et al. 2000
41. Padberg et al. 1999
42. Elliot et al. 1998
43. Tailford et al. 2003
44. Butcher 1976
45. Malosse et al. 1992
46. Malosse et al. 1993
47. Winer et al. 2001
48. Stefferl et al. 2000
49. Guggenmos 2004
50. Chen et al. 2002
51. Norton 2007
52. Park et al. 2005
53. Chen et al. 2006
54. Chen et al. 2007
55. Venn et al. 2005
56. McLachlan 2000
57. Popham et al. 1983
58. Seely 1981).
59. Schmitz and Melnik 2009
60. Batya et al. 2010
61. Danby 2008
62. Adebamowo et al. 2008

milk and calcium myths

Milk Myths

I grew up in the 1960s, when every kid in Australia was given a free bottle of milk just before morning tea at school. I thought it was great. Now, 50 years on, maybe it was a big mistake. Today I see many people with allergies and reactions to milk; chronic illness related to milk is skyrocketing. Even the smallest amount of milk now causes me to have lots of mucus. Despite advertising claims, cow’s milk, as we know it, is not a healthy drink. Not only is it not a great source of calcium for bones but also there is mounting scientific evidence that consuming processed dairy has negative health consequences from colic in kids to breast cancer.

Milk is not the food it used to be. It is so highly processed that it no longer resembles the milk our ancestors consumed thousands of years ago. Today a cow (a Friesian cow) gives 25 litres per day compared to just a few litres daily that cows produced centuries ago. Modern farming practices have extended the milking period to 305 days per year (1). Pasteurization was necessary 100 years ago due to poor hygiene but today it destroys the enzymes that make milk easy to digest, particularly for infants. All milk, including human milk, comes with a rich array of nutrients, including 20 or more enzymes to help digest itself—such as lactase to digest lactose. Homogenisation forces the particles of fat through a series of sieves to mix it with water, just so cream does not settle on top. It then becomes difficult for the body to determine whether it is fat or water. Normally the two don’t go together.

Modern milk has been sold to millions of people around the world based on its supposed benefits in building healthy bones. The research shows that milk has, at best, questionable benefits for preventing osteoporosis and bone fractures and is in fact linked with many forms of chronic illness including cancer, cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes type 1, Parkinson’s disease, gut disorders and allergies.

Calcium for bones?

Findings from long-term studies have cast doubt on the value of consuming the large amounts of dairy and calcium currently recommended. In particular, high calcium intake does not actually appear to lower a person’s risk for osteoporosis (2). There is evidence that the recommended levels in the West are too high, with countries such as India, Japan and Peru having an average daily calcium intake around 300 milligrams (mg) per day, less than half that in the Western world, and no increase in the incidence of bone fractures (3). If increased dairy consumption leads to reduced osteoporosis and fracture rates, then multi-country epidemiologic studies would show that countries with the highest dairy consumption, such as Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. and U.K., would have the lowest osteoporosis and fracture rates yet this is not the case. Although the consumption of dairy products in the United States is among the highest in the world, osteoporosis and fracture rates are simultaneously high (4,5).

Other areas of research also support this finding. A comprehensive literature review found that of 57 evidence-based scientific studies of dairy foods’ effects on bone health, “53% were not significant, 42% were favourable and 5% were unfavourable. Of 21 stronger-evidence studies, 57% were not significant, 29% were favourable and 14% were unfavourable” (6). In other words, despite the huge amount of money the dairy industry invests in research, there are many studies showing that milk has no benefit and that it has potentially negative effects.

In one study, a low intake of calcium (less than one glass of milk daily) was not associated with a significantly increased risk of any fracture, osteoporotic fracture or hip fracture and no significant relationship was observed by age for low milk intake and hip fracture risk (7). There was also no difference in risk of fracture or osteoporosis between men and women. In the Harvard Nurses’ Study of 77,761 mostly white women aged 34-59 who were followed over a 12-year period, those who drank little or no milk compared to the high milk drinkers (three glasses or more) had no reduction in risk of hip or arm fracture (8). The bottom line is that the studies do not support what we are constantly told by the dairy industry, media, governments and dieticians. So why do we keep getting told this message? If it was so clear cut to warrant a health message from the government you would expect all the research to support it. Not only is this not the case but there is also plenty of research to show the complete opposite.

It is simplistic to think that the calcium in our diet goes straight to our bones. The “calcium balance” is where the calcium intake from food is compared to the amount of calcium lost through excretion and unabsorbed mineral in sweat, faeces and urine. The remaining amount, whether positive or negative, is the calcium balance (9). If a person’s calcium balance is positive, there is an excess of calcium in the body, a proportion of which goes directly to increasing bone mineral density (10). If, however, a person’s balance is negative, more calcium is lost than is consumed, and therefore calcium from bone mineral must be reabsorbed into the bloodstream to provide the difference (10). This causes a lowering of bone mineral density and therefore is a factor in the onset of osteoporosis and fracture risk in later life 10. The amount of calcium that is absorbed and retained in the body from dairy products is about 30% of the total calcium consumed (9).

A number of factors help explain this discrepancy. First, calcium absorption is inversely related to the amount of calcium consumed in the diet, with low levels of calcium intake resulting in the most efficient absorption rates (11). This phenomenon may be partly responsible for the fact that many non-dairy-consuming societies around the world have few adverse health effects (such as osteoporosis and fracture) even with relatively low calcium intake (12).

Dairy products contain significant levels of protein, fat (in cheese, cream, butter and full cream products), sugar (in flavoured milks and yoghurts), sodium and phosphorous, all of which reduce the bioavailability of the calcium it contains. The presence of proteins has been demonstrated to have a negative influence on calcium absorption. Protein in milk causes an increase in urinary calcium excretion (13). Some dairy products, especially processed cheeses, clearly increase the urinary excretion of calcium as a result of their increased sodium, sulfur-containing amino acid, and phosphorus content (14). Interestingly, high-fat dairy products such as cheese, butter, chocolate and ice cream have also been found to be acid-forming foods (like protein and alcohol) (15,16), and so the question is raised: how effective are dairy products at ensuring bone health and are there other, more effectual dietary alternatives?

What is good for the bone

While protein has a negative effect on calcium availability, magnesium and potassium, which are found in high concentrations in plants we eat as food, have been recognized as having a largely positive influence (17). These minerals appear to decrease the rate of bone attrition and urinary excretion of calcium from the body when present in moderate quantities. Milk has a poor calcium-to-magnesium ratio and contains low concentrations of potassium, while plant sources have a much higher concentration. Potassium appears to buffer the effects of acidic foods by protecting against calcium loss from the renal acid load of protein (6).

Vitamin D, derived primarily from sunlight, certain oils (including cod liver oil) and fortified foods (including dairy products), is the major nutritional factor affecting calcium absorption (4). Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that inadequate vitamin D levels result in impaired calcium absorption in the body (4,9). The role of vitamin D in milk is also found to significantly lower the risk of fracture (5). Many people in Western populations are now recognised as being deficient in vitamin D (see my earlier article on the topic).

The adequacy of non-dairy centred diets to support bone health has been demonstrated by a recent study conducted in Spain among adolescent males. It reported that a Mediterranean-type intervention diet based on fresh fruits and vegetables, olive oil, fish and legumes provided the same amount of dietary calcium as the subject’s usual (baseline) diet, although the food sources of that calcium varied significantly. The intervention diet also resulted in a significant increase in calcium absorption and retention, while significantly reducing the amount of calcium excreted in urine. This may be partially attributed to the lowered potential renal acid load of the diet, particularly from a high intake of fruit and vegetables (19,20). Therefore, the study concludes, the adoption of a Mediterranean-style diet low in dairy can assist in maximising peak bone mass and preventing osteoporosis without milk or other dairy products (21).

Perhaps the most important part of the bone mass equation is a healthy mixture of minerals from unprocessed plant foods and physical activity, particularly weight-bearing exercises (22,6).
In response to learning these facts about milk, many people ask me, “But where can we get our calcium?” No other animal on the planet experiences bone problems at the rates humans do. Most other animals get calcium from their normal, often vegetarian diet. Our primate cousins, even those such as the gorilla which are much heavier and stronger than us, get all the calcium they need from unprocessed plant foods and cows get theirs from grass and have an excess of calcium.

So where should we be getting our calcium?

References

1. Maruyama et al. 2010
2. Papadimitropoulos et al. 2002
3. Babbar et al. 2006
4. Lanou et al. 2005
5. Feskanich et al. 2003
6. Weinsier and Krumdieck 2000
7. Kanis et al. 2005
8. Roba 2005
9. Allen 1982
10. Atkinson et al. 2008
11. Gallagher et al. 1979
12. Jackson et al. 2001
13. Beresteijn et al. 1990
14. Heaney et al. 1982
15. Alexy et al. 2008
16. Buclin et al. 2001
17. Tucker et al. 1999
18. Allen 1982
19. New 2003
20. Remer 2000
21. Seiquer et al. 2008
22. Black et al. 2002

Cows milk causes Diabetes Type 1

Diabetes Type-1 used to be called juvenile onset diabetes as it was very rare to find it occurring in adults. Now it occurs across the whole spectrum of ages. The reason lies not in genetics but in our diet and environment. Don’t get me wrong, there is always a genetic component but this has not changed and cannot account for the different occurrence and increases in the disease over the past 30 years. The best scientific estimates suggest that only 5-10 percent of diabetes Type-1 can be linked to genetics.

It is thought that the onset of Type-1 is linked with an environmental insult, such as an allergen or a virus, and is an inflammatory response, called insulinitis, from an autoimmune reaction. While there are lots of thoughts about the viruses such as mumps, which set off the autoimmune response, the single most preventable cause is an allergic reaction to cows milk protein. It is the strongest link to the onset of this disease.

For example the consumption of pasteurised cows milk before three months of age increases the chances of getting diabetes Type-1 by 11 times. Even mothers who drink cows milk can pass on the protein allergen through breast feeding. But consumption at any age can be linked with the disease and there are well over one hundred very good scientific studies linking cows milk to the onset of Type-1.

One must then ask, why haven’t we told every one about this? And the answer is the large influence of the dairy industry. Most of the paediatric scientists know about it, but there is just too much pressure to drink milk and too much money involved.