This is an article I read. The facts and estimates mentioned below are very interesting. What do you make of them?

As the Government was desperately looking for areas in which to make cuts, the spotlight fell on the “free milk for children” scheme. Scrapping it could save £60 million a year, yet almost as soon as it was suggested publicly, No 10 hastily released a statement saying the scheme would remain. But the damage had already been done; the militants were shrieking with outrage that such a proposal could even have crossed anyone’s mind.

Yet suppress the initial knee-jerk reaction to look at the science behind it and one can see that it’s a sensible, even advisable idea. The scheme is the only remaining part of the Welfare Food Scheme, introduced in 1940 to protect pregnant women and young children against wartime food shortages, but now, in this time of gross nutritional excess, it is unnecessary. Indeed, scientific evidence is amassing that suggests regular milk consumption may be bad for you.

Experts now say that after the first year of life, children require no milk of any type. The former director of paediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in the States estimates that half of all iron deficiency in US infants results from cows’ milk-induced intestinal bleeding. He proposes that infants drink so much milk (which is low in iron) that they have little appetite left for foods containing iron; at the same time, by inducing gastrointestinal bleeding, milk causes iron loss. The same certainly applies to British infants too.

Cows’milk is just that: for cows. Man is the only animal that drinks milk into adulthood. Cows’ milk is higher in sugar than humans need, and although high in calcium, only 30 per cent of it is available for use by the body, compared to 60-70 per cent for fruits, grains, nuts, roots, seeds and vegetables.

There is also a theory that a protein found in milk mimics a protein found on the insulin-producing cells of the body. If the body develops an allergic reaction to this milk protein, then it is also stimulated to destroy the insulin cells through an autoimmune attack, a possible cause of diabetes.

And while milk is often considered key in the development and maintenance of bones, even this is being questioned. Globally, countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis also have the highest consumption rates of milk and dairy products. Milk proteins contain phosphorous and sulphur compounds that acidify the blood. To correct this acidity, the body actually draws calcium from the bones, weakening them.

Instead of recommending dairy to ward off osteoporosis, we would do better to advise women, and especially teenage girls, to take more exercise. A 15-year study published in the British Medical Journal found that exercise may be the best protection against hip fractures and that a reduced intake of dietary calcium doesn’t seem to be a risk factor.

So is providing our kids with free milk actually doing more harm that good? Current evidence suggests it might be.

1. Dr. Kradjian writes to his patients about milk. Is it really good for us?
2. Is cow’s milk pure?
3. Is human milk pure?
4. Is there a link between diabetes and milk?
5. Is there a link between Leukaemmia and milk?
6. The link between BIV, BSE and milk explained.
7. What are the benefits of drinking milk? Is it a deterrent to good bone health?
8. The link between race and lactose intolerance explained

I was sent an email via the Jain Vegans group and one of the links in the email discusses the link between milk and osteoporosis.

The common perception is that milk will prevents bone disorders such as osteoporosis. If this is true then why has the following been stated by NOTMILK?

American women have been consuming an average of two pounds of milk per day for their entire lives, yet thirty million American women have osteoporosis. Drinking milk does not prevent bone loss. Bone loss is accelerated by ingesting too much protein, and milk has been called “liquid meat.”

So we are feeding ourselves with the very thing that causes osteoporosis?

A quote from Science 1986;233(4763): -

“Osteoporosis is caused by a number of things, one of the most important being too much dietary protein.”

Sixteen years ago the Nutrition Action Healthletter, June, 1993 said: -

“Countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis, such as the United States, England, and Sweden, consume the most milk. China and Japan, where people eat much less protein and dairy food, have low rates of osteoporosis.”

The American Journal of Epidemiology 1994;139 said: -

“Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, were associated with an increased risk of hip fractures…metabolism of dietary protein causes increased urinary excretion of calcium.”

So if all this is clear, out in the open and the information is readily available, why is it not communicated more effectively? Why is the health organisation not warning us about it? Why is the government not doing the same? Why are GP’s not getting involved?

Why are dairy products rammed down our throats everywhere we go? They’re in crisps, some breads, pastries, desserts and so much more!

Are they all buying into it and keeping quiet about the negative affects because they want us to be addicted to their products to ensure their pockets are lined well?

Should WE buy into the message in the poster below?

This is what osteoporosis looks like: -

This article is not my own. Sagar has written it and agreed for me to share it with you.

He is a logical person who makes a huge effort to research and analyse things objectively before sharing his views. This is why I am confident enough to share this with you. 

Please read, with an open mind as the information is quite enlightening. 

I got an e-mail recently from a vegan friend who recently received an e-mail about the links between Soya and Breast cancer.  It got me thinking.

Although a vegan diet does not necessarily need to have soy in it, most of them do, but rejection of soya does not necessarily mean that veganism is a bad thing….

Anyway, I found that these two websites were useful in gathering thoughts….

1) Cancer Research – http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=4126

2) http://www.bryannaclarkgrogan.com/page/page/3476771.htm#should

Here are my thoughts / observations from what I have read:

1) Soya is said to have isoflavones which are said to be phyto-oestrogens – they are plant chemicals that mimic human oestrogens.

2) The impact of soya on oestrogen levels is unclear – some say it increases oestrogen levels, others say it reduces them because oestrogen receptors in the body detect them and stop producing the human hormone.

3) The research done seems to indicate that soya may be beneficial in reducing cancer. Studies have found that women with soya in their diet have longer menstrual cycles (fewer cycles over their life) which is linked to lower cancer rates, and some studies have found soya linking to lower cancer rates. However, some studies have also found negative effects. In general the samples are small, and there have not been that many so the results are mainly inconclusive.

4) Breast cancer treatment often works by reducing oestrogen in the body (oestrogen fuels cancer growth), and so it is advised that women with breast cancer should not take soya products (because of their phyto-oestrogens and their unknown interaction with human oestrogen). This fact may be the think that creates people think that the link between soya and cancer is so strong.

5a) However, this does not mean that soya contributes to the development of the cancer in the first place. My intuition tells me that most of the time, cancer or whatever disease or problem is probably going to develop anyway, it’s just that a diet may help advance it or hold it back. Healthy people with great diets have cancer, as do people with unhealthy diets…

5b) It’s important to bear in mind that many scare stories about cancer are about individuals. The evidence is anecdotal at best. It’s best to rely on studies with larger sample sizes, but unfortunately not that much research has been done.

6a) I think it is worthwhile noting that many other food products contain phyto-oestrogens, and given that cows typically eat a lot of soy, and milk comes from the cows udders (lots of hormones going on to produce it), cow milk probably contains lots of phyto-oestrogens and mammal oestrogens too. So if oestrogens are the link, I’m not sure so much stick should be given to soya.

6b) Regardless of what the studies say, I think I have too much soya in my diet. And, in general, I’d say having too much of something probably isn’t too good for you. Personally, I would rather use another alternative to cow milk, but soya is just so cheap and so widely available.

7) That is not to say that we do not have too much of other things. I personally think I eat too much wheat compared to other grains like quinoa, oats, corn, rice, millet, spelt, barley and rye. I think the general population probably has too much wheat, and too much fat, but because lots of people have it, it doesn’t seem that bad and as alarming! I’m not sure if you drink (I do) but I know there are lots of links between drinking and cancer – but I don’t see people sending out these e-mails saying don’t drink because it causes cancer, because in general because so many people drink it is seen as socially acceptable, even if people know it is bad.

There is a lot of anti-soya propaganda out there – either from dairy industry people who see it as a threat, or otherwise [In India I came across anti-soy from the Indian government because it saw it as a Chinese product that was a threat to the Indian dairy industry). It’s hard to know whether these stories are coming from propaganda or not.

9) If people are on special diets, if something goes wrong, the diet will get blamed, even if what goes wrong was going to happen anyway.

 

Michami Dukkadam

I seek forgiveness if I have caused offence 

Sagar K Shah

I was talking to Bindi about this today. It’s not the first time I’ve thought or talked about it and I still don’t have an answer! Maybe you can help me?

I would say the most important jobs/roles in society fall into three categories. These are health, education and welfare.

Health encompasses nursing, doctors and so on.

Education includes teachers, learning assistants and more.

Welfare is about carers, staff who work in ‘homes’ or in a hospice and social workers.

If you think about it, the jobs are highly pressurised, they involve a lot of paperwork, they are bureaucratic and poorly paid! I mustn’t forget to mention that staff are accountable to the public as well!

Why then are they so poorly paid?

How does it make sense?

How can other jobs pay so much more?

I was talking to Suraj about this and he said it’s because most people are interested in making money. Thus if you make money for someone, you get paid more. That’s why so many other jobs are better paid.

Those of us in health, welfare and education don’t do that. We only look after what is the most precious thing to most people, at one point in their life or another. Usually ‘this thing’ becomes even more precious when they lose it or feel as if it’s slipping away. I guess this refers more directly to health and welfare. With regards to children, most people will tell you that their most precious possession is their children.

If you take all this into account why are people in these professions paid so little?

Yes, consultants are paid more because they have studied for so long and they know so much but do they really deserve to be paid so much more? Who does the daily caring for the patients? Remember this includes lifting them, helping them go to the toilet, changing bandages, administering medication, saving lives, counselling and more! One of my good friends is a nurse and she has a poor social life! Why? Well…she works unsociable hours and when she’s not working, she’s recovering from her shifts and her lack of sleep. Nurses aren’t in a job where they can say ‘I’m going to go and take my break now’. They have to make sure that patients wont be left vulnerable and without supervision. They often don’t finish when they’re supposed to and they don’t get paid for this so called ‘overtime’.

Yes head teachers are paid so much because they are responsible for the school but who teaches the children everyday, cares for them, checks for neglect, signs of abuse, helps them socialise, encourage them to be independent and so much more? Teachers are on the front line. Sometimes we play the role of being the parent of the parents, parent to the child, social worker, counsellor, child protection, academic educator, report writer and so much more. We don’t clock off at 3:15 p.m. and start at 9 a.m. We work before and after school hours. We work during the holidays completing assessments, marking, planning etc. Unlike being in an office, we often have to plan going to the toilet because we can’t just leave the class because we need to go. Some schools now have a sign in Reception saying that the staff have the right to come to work without being abused. This seems to be a situation that a lot of key workers are finding themselves in. What a shame!

I’m not sure if those who run ‘homes’ and those who manage social workers are paid lots more but generally they do not have enough funding, enough staff or enough power to do what they need to do. Of course when this reality is in the face of the public; there’s uproar, outrage and demands are made but the issue and the risks are not new! They were there before, it’s just that something horrid happened, got well publicised and suddenly everyone’s interested! How does that work?

Where does more money need to be placed?

Where does funding really need to go?

Any ideas?

Do you agree or disagree? Please do share your thoughts with me. It’s something I’ve struggled to understand for a very long time!

I contacted Thorntons asking them about something I heard from a friend who has a severe allergy to milk. She told me that a few years ago, those who had various types of allergies could go into any Thorntons store and there would be a range of chocolates that they could buy. However,  she now finds that there is only one product available for those who are vegan/have a dairy allergy.She’s was unsure about those who have different allergies. Perhaps they have more for them.

This is the response I got: -

Dear Heena
Thank you for your e-mail.
I can confirm that we currently only produce Fruit Jellies that are suitable for Vegans.
Again, thank you for contacting us and please let me know if I can be of any further help.

Yours sincerely
Customer Services

This has been taken from the website called Not Milk. I have written a few blogs prior to this one, breaking the letter up as it’s quite long and very rich in terms of what we need to know. I figured that small doses may help in terms of taking it in. This is the final blog post in the series so here’s the summary….

Summary

To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for us and provided milk in our earliest training and conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I’ve heard it described “to die for”.

I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He didn’t smoke or drink, he didn’t eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day’s ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart – and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some expected “middle age spread” when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and died several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don’t think so. He was in his 50s.

So don’t drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the scientific evidence that it does not “do a body good.” Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet’s nutritional value and safety.

Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without cows’ milk. You can too.

It will be difficult to change; we’ve been conditioned since childhood to think of milk as “nature’s most perfect food.” I’ll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health and it won’t cost anything. What can you lose?