IGF-1, Milk and Cancer

False & Misleading Claims from the Fear Profiteers

Dairy farmer campaigns for rbST use

Filed under: IGF-1 News — admin at 11:04 am on Thursday, May 31, 2007

“Generally speaking consumers believe we are putting out a wholesome product,” Campbell said.

Midwest Ag Journal
Doug Rich
May 25, 2007

Excerpt…

“I am not an activist,” says Carrol Campbell, a dairy farmer from Winfield, Kan.

That is until recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk began appearing in dairy cases. Since then Campbell has been talking to industry leaders, legislators, his dairy cooperative, Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), and the Kansas Dairy Association about his concerns.

“I feel we have a responsibility to do something about this issue,” Campbell said. “If someone asked me to come up with a list of the threats to our business, I could come up with a long one that would include environmental issues, cost of production and $4 corn. But by far and without question rbST-free milk would lead my list.”
Campbell has three major concerns associated with the rbST controversy. They are consumer confidence, compensation, and the right to manage his business the best way he can.

“We (the dairy industry) have an unparalleled consumer confidence in our product,” Campbell said. “Generally speaking consumers believe we are putting out a wholesome product. I view the advent of rbST-free milk as a step backwards.”
Campbell believes that when a consumer goes to their grocery store and sees conventional milk alongside milk labeled rbST-free and milk labeled organic that implies the other milk is not good for your health.

“My country-boy logic says if we have that implication we will sell less milk, not more,” Campbell said. “Consumers will go down the isle and buy juice. We have a labeling issue here.”

There is a compensation issue associated with rbST free milk, according to Campbell. Processing milk all costs about the same whether it is labeled rbST free or not. Typically, Campbell has found that grocers charge $1 more for rbST-free milk and $2 more for organic milk. On a per hundred weight basis that is an extra $11.63 for rbST-free milk and $23 extra for organic milk. While some organic producers are seeing higher returns for their product, rbST-producers have not seen an adequate premium.
Campbell said he was offered a 50 cent premium by his cooperative if he would sign an affidavit stating that he was not using rbST. He figures it would take a premium of $1.75 to tempt him to stop using rbST in his herd.

“We get a 10 percent increase in production across the herd with bST and 50 cents is not enough of a premium to get us to stop using it,” Campbell said.
The third concern for Campbell is his ability to manage his dairy and the precedence that rbST-free milk sets for the dairy industry.

“Mention hormones and people think steroids and body builders,” Campbell said. “bST is hormone, a protein that cows produce naturally. When you ingest milk it is digested just like any other protein and there is no evidence that it can do any harm.”
“Prostaglandin is a hormone used in reproductive protocols in modern dairy operations,” Campbell said. “It is a miracle drug and a staple of the dairy industry. It could be the next thing to go.”

“We need to nip this thing in the bud before they gradually eat away at us and dismantle how we manage modern dairy farms today,” Campbell said.….

Full article at Midwest Ag Journal.

Got Milk? Maybe, But Do You Know What Kind?

Filed under: IGF-1 News — admin at 11:15 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Kitsap Sun
May 30, 2007

This article gives several terms and definitions associated with milk. Health aspects of milk are discussed.

Excerpt…

For most Kitsap County residents born before the Reagan era, milk was a fairly easy term to define. It’s whatone poured over cereal in the morning, added to oatmeal to make it creamy or was used to dunk cookies before eating.

But today’s choices can often lead the consumer perplexed and confused, with labels reading “pasteurized,” “homogenized,” “raw milk,” “organic milk” and “soy milk” and with just as wide a variety of percentages, not to mention the rumors of additives or preservatives. So the Dairy Farmers of Washington — in honor of June being Dairy Month — have created the following information, designed to help clear the air in the milk aisle.

Types of Milk

Whole milk: A good choice for children ages 1-2 years and contains 150 calories and 8 grams (g) of fat per 8-fluid oz. serving.

Reduced fat milk: Whole milk in which the milk fat level has been reduced from 3.25 percent to 2 percent (hence its popular name, “2 percent milk”)….

Low fat milk: Whole milk in which the milk fat level has been reduced from 3.25 percent to 1 percent (hence its popular name, “1 percent milk”). Low fat milk contains 100 calories and 2.5 g of fat per 8-fluid oz. serving.

Fat-free milk: Whole milk in which the milk fat level has been reduced from 3.5 percent to essentially none. It is often referred to as “skim milk.” Fat-free milk contains 80 calories and 0 g of fat per 8-fluid oz. serving.

Flavored milk: Milk to which a flavoring — such as cocoa or cocoa powder, strawberry or vanilla extract — and a sweetener have been added…

Cultured Buttermilk: Valued as a recipe ingredient and digestive aid. Buttermilk is freshly pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized fat-free or low-fat milk with added fat-free dry milk solids and a natural culture for taste.

Acidophilus milk: A great digestive aid. Acidophilus milk is pasteurized milk — usually low fat or fat-free…

Reduced lactose milks: For people coping with lactose maldigestion. They are available in reduced fat, low fat and fat-free varieties.…

Low sodium milk: For people on salt-restricted diets with 95 percent or more of the sodium that occurs naturally in milk removed.

Eggnog: Typically a holiday beverage treat that contains milk, egg yoke, egg white and nutritive carbohydrate sweetener.

(Read on …)

Joe Mercola States Organic Milk has No Added Benefits; advocates raw milk

Filed under: IGF-1 News — admin at 12:37 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Mercola.com
May 15, 2007

Joe Mercola commented on the recent announcement that an organic milk surplus is expected this year, and questioned whether organic milk is any healthier for consumers than conventional milk.

Expect an even greater surge of organic milk coming to American grocery stores soon which could create a huge surplus to the tune of more than 25 million gallons, according to dairy analysts. In fact, prognosticators expect the annual growth rate for organic milk will double in America to at least 40 percent in 2007.

Considering some industry experts estimate the demand for organic milk is growing annually by 25 percent, dairy producers like Dean Foods and Organic Valley have welcomed the news and the competition, as they divert some of that excess milk to other product lines, namely powdered milk, ice cream, yogurt and cheeses. By the way, don’t expect prices for organic milk to fall either, as the dairy industry expects the glut to be short-term.

That said, the numbers merely serve to divert the attention of most folks away from the most important question: Is organic milk any better than pasteurized milk for your health? Even conventional medicine agrees there’s no inherent advantage to consuming organic milk, except for the companies that profit from it.

All of this competition obscures the simple fact that, no matter how many chemicals dairy producers remove, pasteurized milk — organic or not — does your health no good at all. The pasteurization process alone destroys some of milk’s natural micronutrient and vitamin content, encourages the growth of harmful bacteria and makes the major part of calcium insoluable, leading to rickets and bad teeth.

Your best bet for your health is to seek out safer sources of raw milk, one of the finest sources of calcium available to humans, from a source near you by reviewing the offerings at Real Milk.

Some New Research Has Me Wondering If I Need to Change My Raw Milk Consumption Patterns

Filed under: IGF-1 News — admin at 1:22 am on Monday, May 14, 2007

Complete Patient
May 14, 2007

In response to an article from Harvard Magazine titled, “Modern Milk,” the following article and comments from subscribers of the Complete Patient blog who are in favor of raw milk consumption (like the blog owner), were mixed in their concern regarding the natural hormones present in all milk. The full article and comments are at Complete Patient.

Excerpt…

Part of the joy of drinking raw milk and partaking of other locally-produced and non-processed foods is being more a part of a natural system, a cyclical system that revolves around seasonal changes, old-fashioned grazing, and animal reproduction cycles.

Well, it’s this last point that may create a problem for my raw milk consumption. A friend who knows of my interest in raw milk sent me an article from the current issue of Harvard Magazine, which quotes a Mongolian physician expressing concerns about the natural hormone levels of milk (excluding BGH-fed cows). Her research indicates that much of our milk has high levels of estrogens, which have been implicated in hormone-dependent cancers like those of the prostate, breast, uterus, etc.

This physician became interested in the subject of milk when she noticed differences in dairy practices between her native Mongolia and Westernized countries. In Mongolia, pasture-fed cows are milked only through the first three months of a pregnancy, when hormone levels are still low, while in Westernized countries cows are kept pregnant and lactating 300 days a year. And, indeed, she has found evidence that hormone-based cancers in Japan, which uses Westernized dairy practices, have increased since the 1950s at about the same rate as milk consumption increased.

I wondered when I read this whether the same practices apply to farmers producing raw milk, so I called the New Hampshire farmer who supplies me with my milk. She told me that cows have the same nine-month pregnancy cycle as humans, and she milks through the first seven months of a pregnancy; the last two months the cows get “a rest,” and then after birth the cows begin being milked again. This is all standard practice, she said, whether a farmer is selling milk raw or sending it off to a processing plant for pasteurization.

The cow that has been providing my milk, she said, is currently pregnant and due in September. That means she became pregnant in January, and is currently in her fifth month of pregnancy, well into the “high-hormone” period. This farmer has a second cow, but it is currently in its rest period.

I’m uncertain what to make of this situation. As someone who has had prostate cancer, I’ve been told to avoid consuming anything that would stimulate increased testosterone production. But would estrogen do that? There is a school of thought that recommends increased consumption of soy products for men as a way to reduce prostate cancer risks, because of soy’s natural estrogen. Confusing stuff.

Yet in the case of the raw milk, I’m thinking that maybe the best thing to do is avoid drinking milk produced by cows in the fourth through seventh months of pregnancy. That means I have to start shopping around for raw milk, and inquiring of farmers about the pregnancy status of the cows producing the milk.

Obviously, other people have their own special concerns. Indeed, the Harvard Magazine article quotes the researcher as suggesting that cows in late pregnancy should not be milked or, if they are milked, their milk should be labeled to show it comes from a pregnant cow.

I guess I can’t just assume the natural cycles are always working for me. But the advantage I have as someone buying directly from a farmer I know is that at least I can find out the real situation.

(Read on …)

Propaganda at the public library

Filed under: IGF-1 News — admin at 9:32 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Maine Coast Now.com
By Cathy Trueman
April 23, 2007

Excerpt…

What better way to spend a rainy Sunday afternoon than at the movies?? That is what I was thinking when I was asked to attend a showing of “The Future of Food” at Vose Library. When we arrived, the wrong movie had been delivered and the PBS documentary on Seabiscuit was playing, while the correct one was on the way.

About a half hour later, the right movie arrived and was introduced. It was during the introduction that I began to realize that I was about to watch a very one-sided story. The movie was about genetically modified foods. It was accompanied by handouts from a group that is called Protect Maine Farmers. One handout requested that I call my State Legislators and ask them to support LD 1650, which is “An Act to Amend the Laws Concerning GE Plants and Seeds.” The other piece was actually a postcard that would make it easy and convenient to mail to my Legislators, urging them to support this bill. Had I just read the bill I might actually have agreed with it and supported the concept. Attending this viewing made me think otherwise.

The introduction was made by a man who stated that the Seabiscuit showing made us think that Monsanto (the sponsor) was a good company. He went on to say that the following movie was going to prove to us that Monsanto was not such a good company. He pointed out the handouts and encouraged the small group to distribute them. He then left, saying that he had another meeting to attend and another representative from their group was on the way to the library.

The movie began and I watched with interest as seemingly sincere farmers gave testimony to the evils of Monsanto and their Roundup Ready seed. Within minutes the technology, science and research were denounced. This was one of the most blatant pieces of propaganda I have ever watched. As the movie progressed I found myself wondering less about the seed and upcoming bill and instead questioning how a library that depends on endowments, financial gifts and an appropriation from the town would host this event. Normally the library is not open on a Sunday, so the building was being used specifically for this viewing. I was truly disappointed that the library would allow itself to be linked to such a misleading piece.

Rather than focus on the subject of the movie itself, I became annoyed that this group is using these tactics to get innocent people to push their legislatures to support a bill. It is unfair to use fear and panic to get a public outcry. I know these measures are not new or uncommon. This type of activity has been going on for many years, but it is not right. Facts should be presented and both sides of a story should be told. The information presented should be impartial. This film was trying to say our food supply is in danger and that Monsanto is to blame. I also got the message that they feel Monsanto has too much power. The makers of the movie do not like that the company has patented the seeds they have developed and own and protect those rights.

As the movie continued, I was watching field after field of soy, wheat and corn and being told it was not good. If I bought into this, I would be afraid to eat anything that I do not grow myself. With my limited gardening skills my survival would be doomed.

Instead, I marveled that we have come so far. Farmers no longer use DDT and other toxins that have caused so much harm. It is a shame that we need to use any chemicals on our food products, but without them we would have very limited supplies of food.

This group calls themselves Protect Maine Farmers, yet the Maine farmers I have spoken to do not support the bill. They did not agree with the message of the movie and were frustrated that it was so misleading….

… Thanks to science, diseases have been eradicated and cures have been found. Cancers that were fatal 30 years ago now can be healed. Heart surgery has become a routine operation, and transplants have become a common way to save lives. Without research and technology we would have none of this.

I left the library feeling quite frustrated. I hope that the people that watch this particular movie try to keep an open mind and realize that they are not hearing both sides of the story. I also hope that places that allow public showings of any movie realize that they look like they are taking a stand. They should carefully consider the content before allowing themselves to associated with the subject.

Cathy Trueman’s column runs every other Tuesday.

Read the full article at Maine Coast Now.com.

— Next Page »