Saturday, 16 January 2010

The Dangers of Cow’s Milk - Should children drink Cows Milk?

This article can be found in this URL:

Raising a child without cows milk seems risky to most parents. Most of us have been raised drinking it and are conditioned to believe the immense benefits it has to offer. It is believed by many, that cows milk is an absolute must to everyone’s diet, especially a growing child who needs the calcium for healthy bone growth.

Think back to as early as elementary school, do you recall the ever so popular food pyramid hanging in your cafeteria that says you need a whopping 3 servings of dairy per day? What about the “Everybody Needs Milk” ads? And the cute little cartons of milk? What child can pass on the school lunch staple - chocolate milk in a cute little carton with a cute little cow?
Our “nutritional education” starting as early as public school (which by the way is partly funded by the dairy industry), taught us that dairy products are one of the four basic food groups we all need for proper nutrition. Cows milk is promoted to be, without a doubt, the most perfect food for humans, especially for children. Being against milk almost seems wrong, and questioning its benefits is bizarre to most. We are told that milk is good, therefore you must believe it is good. But is this really the truth or part of a dairy industry myth?

The Dairy Industry got this part right - Everyone Needs Milk. That is, during infancy, everyone needs milk. Milk is Mother Nature’s most perfect creation. Not only does it provide a baby with the proper nourishment, it also serves as golden medicine. It swarms with antibodies and white blood cells drawn from the body. By drinking it, a baby shares its mothers immune system and much more. Milk provides just the right balance of fats, proteins, vitamins, hormones, and enzymes for the developing baby. Sounds perfect right? It is.. the only catch is that this wonder food is perfect only for the baby whose mother provides it with. In other words, cows milk is perfect… for the calf.. until it is weaned. Dog milk is perfect too, for the puppy of course, as rat milk is for the rat, etc etc etc. Does it make sense to feed a human baby, or adult, with milk that comes from a different species?

To get a better understanding of why cows milk is not meant for humans, lets analyze the difference between a human baby drinking the milk of its mother versus the milk from a cow. The type of milk an animal produces reflects the nutritional needs of its babies. In other words, the milk of each species appears to have been specifically designed to protect the young of that species. In human babies, the high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) provided in breast milk is responsible for rapidly developing the brain; tripling in size by the age of one. Cow’s milk contains a significantly lower amount of PUFAs and a higher level of body-building saturated fats contributing to the rapid growth in body size, rather then brain development. Human milk is 5 to 7 percent protein and it takes an infant approximately 180 days to double their birth weight, whereas a calf requires only 45 days to double their birth weight since the cows milk is 15 percent protein. See the major difference?

Besides the amount of protein present in the two milks, the composition is completely different. Cows milk contains 20 times more casein, the primary type of protein, then human milk, making it nearly impossible for us to assimilate. Also, a large majority of us are lactose intolerant. What does this mean exactly? Being lactose intolerant means that we cannot digest lactose which is the sugar in milk (cow’s milk and human milk). An enzyme known as lactase is responsible for digesting lactose. It has been learned that we lose the lactase enzyme activity between the ages of one and a half and four years old. This appears to be a normal process of maturation and shows that in nature, we were never intended to consume lactose containing foods after the normal weaning period. Having proteins that are not assimilated by our body leads to a weakened immune system causing a wide array of problems such as allergies, asthma, skin rashes, arthritis, heart disease and more.

You might be wondering, what about calcium? You will be surprised to learn that although cows milk contains a large percentile of calcium, it is very hard for us humans to assimilate it due to a different composition of enzymes. As a matter of fact, those that are daily dairy consumers have less calcium in their blood when compared to those that do not consume any dairy. Green leafy vegetables are a great source of calcium as well as other essential nutrients.

Besides all this, you must know that nearly all cows, unless you have raised it yourself, are full of toxins such as pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and growth favtors. Just like in human milk, toxins pass through the cows milk. You might say, well, pasteurization takes care of that. Yes, Pasteurization kills most, but not all of these toxins. Pasteurizing milk also greatly diminishes its nutrient content. After pasteurizing, cows milk has up to a 66 percent loss of vitamins A, D and E. Vitamin C loss usually exceeds 50 percent and vitamins B6 and B12 are completely destroyed. Pasteurization also destroys beneficial enzymes, antibodies and hormones. Pasteurization destroys lipase, an enzyme that breaks down fat, which impairs fat metabolism and the ability to properly absorb fat soluble vitamins A and D. (The dairy industry is aware of the diminished vitamin D content in commercial milk, so they fortify it with a form of this vitamin.) Basically, we are pretty much left with a nutrient-less, chemical full concoction that is high in fat content that gets stored in our cells and contributes to a wide range of health conditions. Does this sound like the perfect food for our developing children?

Who would of thought that something so basic to the American diet be so harmful? Do you know that Westerners suffer from many more alignments then Easterners? Is it a coincidence? I believe not, but don’t take my word for it. Think through all of this thoroughly and come to your own conclusion. What makes the most sense? How can the much “needed” food contain so many minuses to it? How can any perfect food cause such an array of health conditions? If cows milk was so necessary by the human body, would it cause colic, ear infections and eczema in infants? What do you think?

Fortunate for us,we can turn to delicious plant based alternatives to get our nutritional requirements such as calcium. Enjoy some Hemp Milk, Almond Milk or Coconut Milk and be assured that no health alignments will arise from them. Indulge in some almonds, spinach, swiss chard, collards, broccoli, sesame seeds, chia seeds, sprouted sunflower seeds and many more, and you will more then meet your nutritional requirement.

Here is a list of conditions Cows Milk has been associated with:

Bloody Stools
Respiratory Conditions
Pulmonary Infiltrates
Osteoporosis (Might be surprising since Milk is supposed to prevent this condition!)
Iron Deficiency Anemia
Mental Depression
..and many more.

Think wisely, don’t follow the herd, make your own decisions and protect your family

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Scientists link plastics chemical to health risks

The original article can be found here:

Scientists link plastics chemical to health risks

They confirm BPA's link to heart risk; findings likely to restrict the chemical's use. -Reuters
Kate Kelland

Wed, Jan 13, 2010

LONDON - Exposure to a chemical found in plastic containers is linked to heart disease, scientists said on Wednesday, confirming earlier findings and adding to pressure to ban its use in bottles and food packaging.

British and U.S. researchers studied the effects of the chemical bisphenol A using data from a U.S. government national nutrition survey in 2006 and found that high levels of it in urine samples were associated with heart disease.

Bisphenol A, known as BPA, is widely used in plastics and has been a growing concern for scientists in countries such as Britain, Canada and the United States, where food and drug regulators are examining its safety.

David Melzer, professor of epidemiology and public health at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, England, who led the study, said the research confirmed earlier findings of a link between BPA and heart problems.

The analysis also confirmed that BPA plays a role in diabetes and some forms of liver disease, said Melzer's team, who studied data on 1,493 people aged 18 to 74.

"Our latest analysis largely confirms the first analysis, and excludes the possibility that the original report was a statistical blip," they said in a statement.

BPA, used to stiffen plastic bottles and line cans, belongs to a class of compounds sometimes called endocrine disruptors.

The U.S. Endocrine Society called last June for better studies into BPA and presented research showing the chemical can affect the hearts of women and permanently damage the DNA of mice.

"The risks associated with exposure to BPA may be small, but they are relevant to very large numbers of people. This information is important since it provides a great opportunity for intervention to reduce the risks," said Exeter's Tamara Galloway, who worked on the study published by the Public Library of Science online science journal PLoS One.


U.S. environmental health advocacy groups are urging a federal ban on BPA.

"There's enough research to take definitive action on this chemical to reduce exposures in people and the environment," Dr. Anila Jacob of the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organization, said in a telephone interview.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering whether any action needs to be taken.

U.S. government toxicologists at the National Institutes of Health concluded in 2008 that BPA presents concern for harmful effects on development of the prostate and brain and for behavioral changes in fetuses, infants and children.

Canada's government plans to outlaw plastic baby bottles made with BPA. The charity Breast Cancer UK last month urged the British government to do the same because they said there was"compelling" evidence linking the chemical to breast cancer risk.

Experts estimate BPA is detectable in the bodies of more than 90 percent of U.S. and European populations. It is one of the world's highest production volume chemicals, with more than 2.2 million tonnes produced annually.