Dangers of Milk Consumption

8/8/2019 Dangers of Milk Consumption

1/47

Every Body Needs Milk -- until weaning, that is.

http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/milk/

Here are some links to articles on the web about the dangers of milk consumption by

adults.

NoMilk.Com! Lots of useful links on the subject.

Udder Madness: The rBGH Controversy

Because You're Not A Calf Anymore... NLG is dedicated to making informed decisions based on sound knowledge and

honest assessment of the facts involved in the use of recombinant bovinegrowth hormone (rBGH) to increase milk production in cows. The purpose of

this conference is to educate students and the community on important aspectsof the rBGH controversy. Representatives from all sides of the issue have beeninvited.From Vermont Law, a link no longer available online.

Pharming the Cow

Earaches and Tonsillitis

"EARACHE (ear infections) like tonsillitis, sinusitis, and bronchitis are relatedin cause, prevention and cure. Allergies to cow's milk is the most frequentcommon denominator."

Tonsillitis, dietary treatment "... to avoid recurrent attacks: reduce intake ofdairy produce: milk can be replaced with soya milk or goat's milk."

The allopathic remedy to tonsillitis: Milk! "While the throat is very sore, feedthe child soft or liquid foods such as milk, milkshakes, ice cream, soups, orinstant-breakfast milk drinks..." [After I had my tonsils out, I was served icecream. Then I puked!]

Cancer

"...Consuming dairy products is linked to an increased risk for breast cancer..."

"IGF-I survives digestion and has been identified as the KEY FACTOR inbreast cancer's growth."

On Colin Campbell by Charlotte Gerson: When T. Colin Campbell first startedas a young nutritionist, he was sent to the Philippines to help the poor starving

people. The main thing they were stressing was increasing protein, because atthe tiime they were taught that protein is nutrition. So they raised the proteincontent of these children's foods from five to twenty percent. Lo and behold the
http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/milk/http://www.nomilk.com/http://www.rootmedia.org/~messmedia/dsweb/bel2.htm#notcalfhttp://www.rootmedia.org/~messmedia/dsweb/bel2.htm#notcalfhttp://www.vermontlaw.edu/ELC/events/http://www.netfuture.org/1997/Mar2097_43.html#4http://www.netfuture.org/1997/Mar2097_43.html#4http://www.netfuture.org/1997/Mar2097_43.html#4http://www.deaddoctorsdontlie.com/appendix/16.htmlhttp://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/naturalhealth/ailments_t_tonsillitis.htmlhttp://www.healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc1303.htmhttp://www.milksucks.com/breast.htmlhttp://www.notmilk.com/b.htmlhttp://www.notmilk.com/b.htmlhttp://www.commonground.ca/iss/0210135/8_gerson.shtmlhttp://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/milk/http://www.nomilk.com/http://www.rootmedia.org/~messmedia/dsweb/bel2.htm#notcalfhttp://www.vermontlaw.edu/ELC/events/http://www.netfuture.org/1997/Mar2097_43.html#4http://www.deaddoctorsdontlie.com/appendix/16.htmlhttp://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/naturalhealth/ailments_t_tonsillitis.htmlhttp://www.healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc1303.htmhttp://www.milksucks.com/breast.htmlhttp://www.notmilk.com/b.htmlhttp://www.notmilk.com/b.htmlhttp://www.commonground.ca/iss/0210135/8_gerson.shtml


2/47

kids developed liver cancers. Two physicians in India did similar experimentswith rats. They raised their content of milk proteins from five to twenty

percent. All thirty-five rats, 100 percent, developed liver cancer. Later on,Campbell studied China and found that in certain provinces where no milk isused, there is no cancer. He called milk the number one carcinogen in theworld.

Yahoo links on Lactose Intolerance

A new book by David Pimentel, Ecological Integrity. "Tax on eaters at top of foodchain would aid environmental sustainability, Cornell ecologist proposes in new

book...."

It can be expected that the incidence of infectious diseases will increase for youngpeople: Coke to add milk products to beverage line.

The following isfrom http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/columns/027986.htm

SECTIONS

Breaking News

Front Page

World

National

Local & State

Business & Stocks

Technology

Sports

SV LifeEntertainment

Opinion

Columnists

Comics

Weather

SV Magazine

Nuevo Mundo

Published Monday, March 27, 2000, in the San Jose Mercury News

Related Links

PerspectiveWriting TechniquesSpecial ReportsSeven-Day Archives
http://dir.yahoo.com/Health/Diseases_and_Conditions/Lactose_Intolerance/http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan01/pimentel_book.hrs.htmlhttp://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/milk/coke_milk.htmhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/columns/027986.htmhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/breaking/http://www.mercurycenter.com/front/http://www.mercurycenter.com/front/http://www.mercurycenter.com/world/http://www.mercurycenter.com/world/http://www.mercurycenter.com/nation/http://www.mercurycenter.com/local/http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/http://www.mercurycenter.com/sports/http://www.mercurycenter.com/svlife/http://www.mercurycenter.com/ent/http://www.mercurycenter.com/opinion/http://www.mercurycenter.com/opinion/http://www.mercurycenter.com/columnists/http://cgi.mercurycenter.com/comics/http://www.mercurycenter.com/weather/http://www.svmagazine.com/http://www.nuevomundo.com/http://www.mercurycenter.com/opinion/perspective/http://www.mercurycenter.com/opinion/write/http://www.mercurycenter.com/special/http://www.mercurycenter.com/archives/sevendays/http://www.mercurycenter.com/event.ng/Type=click&ProfileID=277&RunID=25521&AdID=13956&GroupID=1&FamilyID=1089&TagValues=154.196.274.298.414&Redirect=http:%2F%2Fwww.lowestpremium.comhttp://dir.yahoo.com/Health/Diseases_and_Conditions/Lactose_Intolerance/http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan01/pimentel_book.hrs.htmlhttp://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/milk/coke_milk.htmhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/columns/027986.htmhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/breaking/http://www.mercurycenter.com/front/http://www.mercurycenter.com/world/http://www.mercurycenter.com/nation/http://www.mercurycenter.com/local/http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/http://www.mercurycenter.com/sports/http://www.mercurycenter.com/svlife/http://www.mercurycenter.com/ent/http://www.mercurycenter.com/opinion/http://www.mercurycenter.com/columnists/http://cgi.mercurycenter.com/comics/http://www.mercurycenter.com/weather/http://www.svmagazine.com/http://www.nuevomundo.com/http://www.mercurycenter.com/opinion/perspective/http://www.mercurycenter.com/opinion/write/http://www.mercurycenter.com/special/http://www.mercurycenter.com/archives/sevendays/


3/47

Viet Mercury

CLASSIFIEDS & SERVICES

Classifieds

Jobs: CareerPath

Homes: HomeHunterNewHomeNetwork.com

Apartments.com

Mortgage Link

Cars: Cars.com

Personals

Yellow Pages

BayArea.com

Entertainment: Just Go

S.F. Bay Traveler

Archives: NewsLibrary

E-mail Dispatches

Contests & Events

ABOUT US

Mercury Center

Advertising Information

Privacy Policy

Site Index

San Jose Mercury NewsAdvertising Information

Newspaper Subscription

Mercury News

Newsletter

Mercury News Jobs

MILTON R. MILLS

Got milk? For many people,there are reasons to get rid of

it

BY MILTON R. MILLS

In mid-March, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animalssparked controversy with its campaign promoting beer'sadvantages over cow's milk to college students. Certainly, fewhealth professionals would advocate beer as a health tonic, yetmany mistakenly regard milk as a necessarily wholesome choice.Indeed, saying ``don't drink your milk'' may initially sound as un-American as ``don't eat apple pie.'' But PETA's anti-milk pointsare well-taken.

For generations, most parents and physicians have kept urgingchildren to drink their glasses of milk. To be sure, they generallyhad good intentions-but they also had been flooded with endlesspromotions and ads from the financially well-set dairy industry.More recently, it's hard to miss those here, there and everywheremilk-mustache and ``Got Milk?'' billboards, bus ads, print ads,TV spots, and classroom promotions. The milk industry even hitthe road with its ``Better Bones Tour,'' visiting 100 U.S. citieswith trucks carrying displays claiming a beneficial relationshipbetween dairy and osteoporosis.

Science, however, has been raining on dairy's parade.Observations in South African black townships, with virtually nodairy consumption, showed residents there experience almost noosteoporosis, while the chronic bone disease afflicts millions indairy-devouring places such as Scandinavia, Canada, and the

United States. In a finding published in the American Journal ofPublic Health in June 1997, the 12-year Harvard Nurses' Studyof almost 78,000 people found those regularly consuming dairyproducts had no protection at all against hip and forearmfractures. Indeed, women drinking three glasses of milk daily hadmore fractures than women who rarely or never touched milk.

Other studies are investigating dairy's links with breast cancer,
http://www.vietmercury.com/http://classifieds.mercurycenter.com/classifieds/indexnojava.htmlhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/products/careerpath/http://www.homehunter.com/bayarea/http://www.newhomenetwork.com/sanfrancisco/http://www.apartments.com/search/oasis.dll?p=ccosta&rgn11=23&page=Area&state=CA&partner=ccosta&prvpg=2http://www.mercurycenter.com/svlife/realestate/mortgage/http://www.cars.com/carsapp/sanjose/?srv=parser&act=display&tf=/index-default.tmplhttp://www.cars.com/carsapp/sanjose/?srv=parser&act=display&tf=/index-default.tmplhttp://www.relationshipnetwork.com/sanjose.htmhttp://www.zip2.com/bayarea/http://www.zip2.com/bayarea/http://www.bayarea.com/http://www.justgo.com/bayarea/http://www.sfbaytraveler.com/http://www.mercurycenter.com/resources/search/http://www.passport.realcities.com/sjm_subscribehttp://www.mercurycenter.com/bayarea/contests/http://www.mercurycenter.com/products/marcom/advertising/online/online.htmhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/privacy.htmhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/resources/map/http://www.mercurycenter.com/products/marcom/advertising/http://cgi.mercurycenter.com/cgi-bin/subscription.cgi/mchometxthttp://www.mercurycenter.com/products/marcom/insidemn/http://www.mercurycenter.com/products/marcom/insidemn/http://www.mercurynews.com/jobshttp://www.vietmercury.com/http://classifieds.mercurycenter.com/classifieds/indexnojava.htmlhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/products/careerpath/http://www.homehunter.com/bayarea/http://www.newhomenetwork.com/sanfrancisco/http://www.apartments.com/search/oasis.dll?p=ccosta&rgn11=23&page=Area&state=CA&partner=ccosta&prvpg=2http://www.mercurycenter.com/svlife/realestate/mortgage/http://www.cars.com/carsapp/sanjose/?srv=parser&act=display&tf=/index-default.tmplhttp://www.relationshipnetwork.com/sanjose.htmhttp://www.zip2.com/bayarea/http://www.bayarea.com/http://www.justgo.com/bayarea/http://www.sfbaytraveler.com/http://www.mercurycenter.com/resources/search/http://www.passport.realcities.com/sjm_subscribehttp://www.mercurycenter.com/bayarea/contests/http://www.mercurycenter.com/products/marcom/advertising/online/online.htmhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/privacy.htmhttp://www.mercurycenter.com/resources/map/http://www.mercurycenter.com/products/marcom/advertising/http://cgi.mercurycenter.com/cgi-bin/subscription.cgi/mchometxthttp://www.mercurycenter.com/products/marcom/insidemn/http://www.mercurycenter.com/products/marcom/insidemn/http://www.mercurynews.com/jobs


4/47

ovarian cancer, iron deficiency, insulin-dependent diabetes,cataracts, food allergies, heart disease, asthma and colic.Common toxic contaminants in dairy include pesticides, drugsand antibiotic traces.

In attacking cow's milk, PETA actually echoes the growingnumber of nutritionists and doctors -- the late pediatricianBenjamin Spock among them -- wiping off their milk mustaches.

From my perspective as an African-American physician, there isanother troubling side to dairy promotions, and especially togovernment recommendations that it be part of every schoollunch meal and similar nutrition programs.

While only about 15 percent to 20 percent of U.S. whites are

intolerant of the milk sugar lactose, some 95 percent of AsianAmericans, about 70 percent of African Americans and NativeAmericans, and more than 50 percent of Mexican-Americanscannot digest it. Many get quite sick from it. Nature starts toremove the enzymes that digest milk sugar once we have passedthe age of weaning.

Indeed, one can call lactose intolerance nature's normal warningsignal not to ``do dairy,'' akin to the protective pain signalsprompting you to snatch your hand away from a hot stove. Ofcourse, some advocate taking lactose-tolerance pills or adding

small amounts of dairy at intervals throughout the day to ``trick''the body into accepting milk, ice cream, and so on. But, if youwouldn't want to trick your hand into not feeling a searinglypainful stove, why would you want to temporarily mask theunhealthy downside of dairy? Being lactose-intolerant reallyconstitutes genetic good luck.

It's bad enough that current federal dietary guidelines encouragemeat consumption, though they do list nutritionally soundalternatives, such as legumes (beans and peas). However, the1992-issued federal Food Guide Pyramid's ``dairy section''

doesn't even bother to list substitutes, though the 2000 DietaryGuidelines for Americans draft does finally mention soymilk.Indeed, healthy dairy-free alternatives such as fortified soymilkand calcium-set tofu have become increasingly available insupermarkets, as well as in health food stores and food co-ops.

Calcium, dairy's big ``health'' selling point, does indeedstrengthen teeth and bones. But it's readily absorbable from


5/47

broccoli, kale, mustard greens, turnip greens, Brussels sprouts,pinto beans, navy beans, black-eyed peas, calcium-set tofu, and,of course, the new fortified orange juice and apple juiceproducts. And none of those haul the health-damaging freight

that dairy does.

So, for your health's sake, why not replace cow's milk withsoymilk and other alternatives?

Milton R. Mills, M.D., a Stanford University-trained physician

specializing in nutrition, practices in Virginia and volunteers asassociate director of preventive medicine at the Washington-

based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He

wrote this column for the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service.

*** Pharming the CowFrom Craig Holdrege

[Back inNF #31 I reviewed Craig Holdrege's remarkable book, Genetics and theManipulation of Life. One section of that book is quite unlike all the others; it's not somuch about genetics as about the life of the cow and how it is affected by thescientific and engineering stances we take. Lindisfarne Press has kindly granted

permission to reprint the piece here. It offers, I think, a nice counterpoint to thecurrent news stories about Dolly and genetic engineering.

The following text is copyright 1996 by Craig Holdrege. Some technical referenceshave been removed. Genetics and the Manipulation of Life is available fromLindisfarne for $14.95 by calling 518-851-2054. SLT]

Cows are grazers. They live in the midst of the food they eat. The cow lowers its headto the ground and touches the meadow plants (or the hay in its stall) with the front endof its soft, moist snout. The cow does not bite off the plants with its teeth or lips, butreaches out with its rough, muscular tongue, enwraps the plants, and tears them off. Itclearly needs to use its tongue in this way -- cattle that receive soft feed begin to licktheir fellow cows much more than usual. The tongue needs the stimulation ofroughage.

After it has torn off a few portions and chewed a bit, the cow swallows a mouthful,This activity continues for a few hours. The food reaches the rumen, the huge firstchamber of the four-chambered stomach. Occupying the entire left side of theabdominal cavity, the rumen can hold forty-five gallons.
http://www.netfuture.org/1996/Nov0596_31.html#2http://www.netfuture.org/1996/Nov0596_31.html#2


6/47

Digestion in the rumen is facilitated by microorganisms that break down cellulose, themain, hard-to-digest component of roughage. Bacterial activity, the secretion ofdigestive juices, and the muscle activity of the rumen are all stimulated by roughage.In fact, the rumen only finishes its development and becomes functional when a calf

begins to feed on grass or hay.

When the rumen is about half-full, portions of the partially digested food areregurgitated back into the mouth. Rumination begins. Cows usually lie on the groundwhile ruminating. They grind their food between their large cheek teeth in rhythmical,circling motions of the lower jaw. You are probably familiar with the picture of calm

presented by a herd of cows, lying in a meadow, their activity focused inwardly ongrinding and digestion.

Digestion involves an intensive production, circulation, and secretion of body fluids.The process begins in the head. While the cow is ruminating, the saliva glands secrete

copious amounts of saliva -- up to forty gallons a day. The drier the feed (for example,hay), the more the saliva, and the greater the amount of water a cow drinks. As [E.M.] Kranich points out, functionally one can consider the mouth to be a fifth chamberof the stomach.

After rumination, the food is swallowed, entering first the other three chambers of thestomach and then the small intestine. In these organs, fluids are removed from thefood and new digestive juices are secreted until finally the cow has broken down itsfood to a point where it can be taken up by the blood.

Characteristic for cows is their fluid dung, in contrast to the solid dung of otherruminants like sheep or deer. The cow's large intestine does not absorb as much fluidout of this final section of the digestive tract. In fact, from its moist snout, through thewhole digestive tract, and finally in its dung, the cow shows more fluidity than otherruminants.

The digestive process is related to the blood -- a fluid organ that connects all organs ofthe body. For every quart of saliva, three hundred quarts of blood pass through thesalivary glands. The other digestive organs are sustained by a similarly strongcirculation.

The intensive transformation of substances and secretion of fluids characterizing thedigestive process are heightened in the formation and secretion of milk. Substances

produced by digestion are withdrawn from the blood in the udder. For every quart ofmilk, three to five hundred quarts of blood pass through the udder. Glands in theudder then create a wholly new substance -- milk. This is not a substance that is used

by the cow or excreted; rather, it serves another growing organism -- the calf. The


7/47

cow only begins to produce milk after she has given birth to a calf, and the calf hasbegun to suck on the teats.

When we build up a picture of the cow in this way, we begin to see the cow as a totalorganism. We view each part in the context of other parts, so that the animal as a

whole comes into view, even if only in an elementary way. One result of thisendeavor is that milk loses its isolated status as a product we consume. As consumerswe tend to take for granted our relation to the cow. When we gain some insight intothe cow viewed as an organism, this relation is enhanced.

The domestication of cows by human beings goes back thousands of years. In thecourse of time this interaction has led to many different breeds, each with its owncharacteristics. These characteristics reflect in part the aims of the breeders. Breederstry to realize in the domestic animal (or plant) a mental picture they carry withinthemselves. Moreover, the way we now care for these animals stems in good part

from our points of view.

Until this century the cow gave about as much milk per day as her calf would havedrunk, had it not been weaned -- about two to three gallons in present-day breeds (inIndia, about one-half gallon per day). In our time, the dairy cow's milk production canexceed seven gallons per day. This increase has taken place essentially within the lastfifty years.

How has the increase been made possible? First, by breeding larger cows that byvirtue of their size eat more, digest more, and give more milk. Second, by feeding

them differently. When cows receive more high-protein grains in their feed, theyproduce more milk. But since, as we have seen, cows need roughage, this dietarychange has its limits.

A simple method has been developed to circumvent the need for roughage in steersbred for beef. The steers are "fed" plastic pot scrubbers -- the ones we buy insupermarkets -- instead of roughage. In trials, pot scrubbers were wrapped in maskingtape and then, one after another, eight scrubbers were pushed down the steer's throatinto the rumen. The tape soon detached from the scrubbers, which "were observed tofloat on the surface of the ruminal contents in these steers and to form a mat similar tothat observed when ruminants are fed roughage." The scrubbers remain in the rumenfor life.

The trials indicated that steers fed 100% concentrate plus pot scrubbers grew atapproximately the rate of cattle fed 85% concentrate with 15% roughage (corn silage).Evidently, the scrubbers stimulate the rumen walls in a manner similar to roughage.


8/47

In undertaking his research, [S.] Loerch surmised that "because roughage is relativelylow in energy and is expensive, it would be beneficial if roughage could be eliminatedfrom cattle diets without sacrificing performance." It is by no means clear that afarmer would actually save money using this method, since it is not a given that 15%more concentrate would be cheaper than producing or buying a corresponding amountof corn silage. But some farmers or feedlots have evidently used Loerch's method,since, as a university animal scientist, he is reported to have received many phonecalls "from bewildered butchers who have found pot scrubbers in the guts ofslaughtered cattle" (New York Times, August 29, 1992).

In its starkness this example is illustrative. It shows not only how strongly the desireto lower costs is a determining factor in agricultural research, but also in what narrowterms the cow is viewed. The cow's need for roughage is reduced to a mechanicalfunction, and this can be substituted for. The sensory qualities of hay or silage -- taste,smell, texture -- are not considered. Nutritional considerations are reduced toascertaining that roughage is low-calorie feed and therefore not effective for fastgrowth. The steer can no longer ruminate because the scrubbers are too large to beregurgitated. Has this no significance for the animal's well-being and physiology? Thecow as a mechanism and not the cow as an organism stands behind the roughagesubstitute.

Perhaps a more enlightened age will discover that the nutritional quality of foodstuffssuch as milk or beef are dependent not only on the results of biochemical analysis, butalso on the way the animals are raised and cared for.

Coupling the view of the cow as a mechanism with a one-sided economic perspectivethat emphasizes cost-effectiveness has become increasingly prevalent in our times.This is particularly true in genetic engineering:

Producing human pharmaceutical proteins in the milk of transgenic livestock has beenan attractive possibility....Such "molecular pharming" technologies are appealing for anumber of reasons. They offer the potential of extremely high volumetric

productivity, low operating costs, and unlimited multiplication of the bioreactor [thatis, the animal]....In this issue ofBio/Technology three groups report significant

progress in realizing these benefits....Their results provide convincing demonstrationof the feasibility of using animals as commercial bioreactors. [Bio/Technology, vol. 9(1991), pp. 786-788]

The attempt to continually increase milk production reflects the treatment of cows ascommercial bioreactors. This tuning of the bioreactor in a specific direction has

brought with it some unwanted side effects. These include fertility problems, mastitis,and leg and hoof afflictions. High milk-producing cows are often slaughtered after


9/47

three years of lactation (five-year-old animals). Without the demand to produce asmuch milk as possible in a short period of time, a cow will reach its peak of milk

production after three or four years of lactation, and will continue healthy lactation fora number of years beyond that.

When we begin to think in terms of the organism, we learn to expect that the desiredeffect of our manipulations will in all likelihood be only one among many changes.From the point of view of the organism, there is no such thing as a side effect. Theorganism is a whole. If we change a part, the whole is changed, and this change willlikely manifest in ways that go beyond any desired effects.

It is not, therefore, very surprising that mastitis can accompany increased milkproduction. Mastitis is an inflammation of the udder. Since it is an infectious disease,strict hygienic procedures are called for to prevent bacteria from entering the uddervia the openings in the teats. But this is only one side of the problem. Due to the

intensive circulation in the udder during lactation, the udder is susceptible toinflammation. (Increased circulation always occurs in inflamed organs -- it calls forththe warmth and redness of inflamed tissue.) When milk production is increased to theutmost degree, the udder is almost on the verge of inflammation without bacteria. Thecow's physiology is stressed, and when bacteria do enter the udder, mastitis is likely.

In November, 1993, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved thecommercial sale of milk, milk products, and meat from cows treated with recombinant

bovine growth hormone (rBGH). This hormone is produced by bacteria that have beengenetically altered by a cow-derived DNA that is related to the organism's productionof growth hormone. In some unknown way, growth hormone stimulates milk

production. Cows injected with this hormone produce 10 to 20% more milk.

Much controversy surrounds the use of rBGH, and in Europe its use has not beenapproved. The FDA was concerned solely with the product's safety. FDA scientistsconcluded that experimental evidence (provided by manufacturers of rBGH)demonstrates that milk from treated cows is in essence chemically identical to milkfrom untreated cows. Therefore, the FDA sees no reason for the milk to be labeled ascoming from rBGH-treated cows.

Extensive testing of rBGH was done on rats as part of the FDA's procedure forestablishing the safety of the substance. Although such experimental results cannotsimply be assumed to be valid for cows, they are in and of themselves interesting.Researchers found that the whole organism was affected by rBGH. The treatedanimals were larger than normal. When the researchers investigated the individualorgans, they found that some were proportionately smaller while others were

proportionately larger than normal. Such changes depended in part on the animal's


10/47

sex. "Ratios of organ weight to body weight were increased for spleen and adrenal[gland] and decreased for testes in male rats, and increased for heart and spleen anddecreased for brain in the female rats."

Such detailed analyses have not been performed on cows, but the question of the

effects of rBGH has been a source of major controversy and concern. Monsanto, aproducer of rBGH, claims there are no significant side effects. Some independentscientists have come to different conclusions. Most recently, a research group led byErik Millstone analyzed Monsanto data. The group concluded that milk from rBGH-treated cows contained an average of 19% more white blood cells than milk fromuntreated cows. White blood cells enter an organ as part of the inflammatory reaction.An increase in white blood cells is "associated with increased risk of mastitis." Theresearchers acknowledge that their analysis will remain incomplete until Monsantoreleases all the pertinent data. They also report that Monsanto blocked their originalattempt to publish their analysis of the data.

Out of what context is rBGH produced, and into what context do its effects radiate?Clearly there is no consumer demand for more milk, nor is there a demand for rBGHmilk. "From 1987 to 1989 the [U.S.] government has spent between $600 million and$1.3 billion a year to purchase surplus milk (Hastings Center Report, July/August,1991, p. 3). Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that if only one infive farmers were to use rBGH in the first year it is sold, "the government will have tospend $15 million [more] to buy the [additional] surplus milk."

It is absurd to invent a product to increase milk production while milk itself is alreadybeing produced in surplus. Such a total separation of production from actual needs is aconsequence of our economic system. In modern Western economic ideology there isan emphasis on growth, higher production, and cost-cutting. The attempt to emphasizesuch things in agriculture has led to the development of ever larger factory farms.Higher productivity is achieved to the detriment of the connection between farmersand the plants and animals upon which their work is based. And large governmentsubsidies reflect an approach to production that does not take into consideration realconsumer needs.

Large chemical companies continually grow. This growth is seen as the means tocounter rising costs of production (inflation, higher wages, and so on). When such acompany invests millions of dollars to develop a new product like rBGH, it mustaggressively market the product. Farmers (particularly those with large farms) whoseek further mechanization and ever higher production are most likely to use rBGH.But others follow in fear of not being able to compete.


11/47

And what about the cow? As long as we treat it as a commercial bioreactor, there is noreason not to continue trying to increase production. But if we remember that the cowis an organism, then we must ask how far we can healthily push milk production. Bygaining insight into the cow as a "small world, existing for its own sake" [Goethe], wecan recognize its specific characteristics and needs, and begin to fit our actions into itscontext.

Practicing this point of view is made extremely difficult by current economic realities.This problem, where it is recognized, has led (to mention one example) to theestablishment of Community Supported Agriculture. Here farmers and consumersenter an economic association that frees the farmer to some degree from thecompelling necessity to increase production and lower costs. The consumercommunity provides the farmer with an income. At the same time, farm production isrelated more directly to consciously affirmed consumer needs. Within this setting it

becomes possible to handle animals like the organisms they are. [SeeNF #30 for moreon Community Supported Agriculture. SLT]

Anyone who thinks in terms of commercial bioreactors and acts accordingly will ofnecessity consider it uneconomic to worry over the fact that animals are living,sentient beings.

Goto table of contents
http://www.netfuture.org/1996/Oct2496_30.html#2http://www.netfuture.org/1997/Mar2097_43.html#0http://www.netfuture.org/1996/Oct2496_30.html#2http://www.netfuture.org/1997/Mar2097_43.html#0


12/47

= Breast Cancer

The following ten references provide converging lines of evidence that focus upon one

central point.

There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in nature, and only one hormone that

is identical between any two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like growth

factor, or IGF-I. IGF-I survives digestion and has been identified as the KEY FACTOR in

breast cancer's growth.

IGF-I is identical in human and cow.

If you believe that breast feeding "works" to protect lactoferrins and immunoglobulins

from digestion (and benefit the nursing infant), you must also recognize that milk is a

hormonal delivery system. By drinking cow's milk, one delivers IGF-I in a bioactive form

to the body's cells. When IGF-I from cow's milk alights upon an existing cancer...

"Human Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) and bovine IGF-I are identical. Both contain 70

amino acids in the identical sequence."

Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer. SCIENCE, vol. 249. August 24, 1990.

"IGF-I is critically involved in the aberrant growth of human breast cancer cells."

M. Lippman. J. Natl. Inst. Health Res., 1991, 3.

"Estrogen regulation of IGF-I in breast cancer cells would support the hypothesis that

IGF-I has a regulatory function in breast cancer."

A.V. Lee, Mol-Cell- Endocrinol., March, 99(2).

"IGF-I is a potent growth factor for cellular proliferation in the human breast carcinoma

cell line."

J.C. Chen, J-Cell-Physiol., January, 1994, 158(1)


13/47

"Insulin-like growth factors are key factors for breast cancer growth."

J.A. Figueroa, J-Cell-Physiol., Nov., 1993, 157(2)

"IGF-I produces a 10-fold increase in RNA levels of cancer cells. IGF-I appears to be acritical component in cellular proliferation."

X.S. Li, Exp-Cell-Res., March, 1994, 211(1)

"IGF-I plays a major role in human breast cancer cell growth."

E.A. Musgrove, Eur-J-Cancer, 29A (16), 1993

"IGF-I has been identified as a key factor in breast cancer."

Hankinson. The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998

"Serum IGF-I levels increased significantly in milk drinkers, an increase of about 10%

above baseline but was unchanged in the control group."

Robert P. Heaney, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 99, no. 10. October

1999

"IGF-1 accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells."

M. Lippman Science, Vol. 259, January 29, 1993

Robert Cohen author of: MILK A-Z

(201-871-5871)

Executive Director ([email protected])

Dairy Education Board

http://www.notmilk.com

Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of these milk-related

problems? Do them a huge favor and forward the URL or this entire file to them.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965919684/ref=ase_dorwaybookshelf/102-1645015-4199347mailto:[email protected]://www.notmilk.com/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965919684/ref=ase_dorwaybookshelf/102-1645015-4199347mailto:[email protected]://www.notmilk.com/


14/47


15/47

Japanese women who follow a more Western-style, meat- and dairy-based diet are eight times morelikely to develop breast cancer than their counterparts who eat a plant-based diet not containing dairyproducts.

There are numerous other studies to cite. For example, Dr. J.L. Outwater of Princeton University and Drs.A. Nicholson and N. Barnard of The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine cite more than 12

epidemiological studies that show a positive correlation between dairy products and breast cancer.

An Italian study revealed that breast cancer risks increased as a result of the consumption of animal fat,animal protein, most significantly with regard to dairy products. The authors of this study, published inthe British Journal of Cancer, indicate that the results are consistent with previous reports. Additionally,doctors in Milan report data showing a strong correlation between dairy consumption and breast cancer.

Another Italian study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, reported that adult womenwho reduce their dietary intake of fat and animal protein substantially lower their risk of breast cancer.

A survey of 1,486 Danish women with breast cancer indicated that women who frequently consumed"standard" (whole) milk or consumed three or more liters of low-fat milk per week prior to their diagnosissignificantly elevated their risk of developing breast cancer.

A report published in Cancer Research correlates breast cancer mortality with dairy consumption andsuggests that dairy products play a role in the development of breast cancer.

A comparison study published in Cancershows that meat and milk consumption are positively associatedwith breast cancer deaths. Doctors found a strong link between breast cancer and animal fat, but norelationship between breast cancer and vegetable fat.

Researchers at Stanford University and the National Institutes of Health found that high concentrations ofthe IGF-1 hormone stimulate cancer cell growth. IGF-1, a hormone that occurs naturally in humans andcows and in all milk, is increasingly abundant in milk from cows treated with synthetic bovine growthhormone (rBGH). In the International Journal of Health Sciences, University of Illinois scientist Dr. SamuelEpstein warns that elevated levels of IGF-1 in milk from cows injected with rBGH is a potential risk factorfor breast cancer in humans who consume cows milk.

Studies published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association and the British MedicalJournalfound that consuming three additional servings of nonfat or 1 percent milk for 12 weeks wasassociated with a 10 percent increase in IGF-1 levels. The Food and Drug Administration reports thatIGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization. In fact, pasteurization actually increases its concentration inrBGH milk.

Ready to reach for the soy milk? Click here for delicious dairy-free recipes.

For more information, visit these sites:

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, "Foods for Cancer Prevention"http://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.html

Foods for Cancer Prevention download this factsheet

Of the many diseases that affect people these days, cancer is among the most feared. But despite a

wealth of scientific data, most people remain unaware of how they can reduce their risk of developing

cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute, as much as 80 percent of all cancers are due to
http://www.milksucks.com/free.htmlhttp://www.milksucks.com/free.htmlhttp://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.htmlhttp://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.htmlhttp://pcrm.org/health/PDFs/pv_cancerprev.pdfhttp://www.milksucks.com/free.htmlhttp://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.htmlhttp://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.html


16/47

identified factors, and thus are potentially preventable. Thirty percent are due to tobacco use, and as

much as 35 to 50 percent are due to foods. It is easy to control these and other risk factors.

What Is Cancer?

Cancer begins as a single abnormal cell that begins to multiply out of control. Groups of such cellsform tumors and invade healthy tissue, often spreading to other parts of the body. Carcinogens are

substances that promote the development of cancerous cells. They may come from foods, from the

air, or even from within the body. Most carcinogens are neutralized before damage can occur, but

sometimes they attack the cells genetic material (DNA) and alter it. It takes years for a noticeable

tumor to develop. During this time, compounds known as inhibitors can keep the cells from growing.

Some vitamins in plant foods are known to be inhibitors. Dietary fat, on the other hand, is known to

be a promoter that helps the abnormal cells grow quickly.

Fiber Fights Cancer

In 1970, British physician, Dennis Burkitt, observed that a high-fiber diet reduces diseases of the

digestive tract. He observed that in countries where diets are high in fiber (that is, plant-based diets),

there were fewer cases of colon cancer. Around the world, this has proven true. The highest fiber

intakes are found in non-industrialized nations where meat is scarce and plant foods fill the menu.

Animal products contain no fiber. The U.S. and other Western nations whose diets are based upon

animal products have the highest rates of colon cancer.

While no one is certain exactly how fiber protects against digestive tract disorders, there are several

possibilities. By definition, fiber cannot be digested by humans early in the digestive process. It moves

food more quickly through the intestines, helping to eliminate carcinogens. It also draws water into

the digestive tract. The water and fiber make fecal matter bulkier, so carcinogens are diluted.

Bile acids are secreted into the intestine to help digest fat; there, bacteria can change the acids into

chemicals which promote colon cancer. Fiber may bind with these bile acids and evict them from the

intestines.1 Also, bacteria in the colon ferment the fiber creating a more acidic environment which may

make bile acids less toxic.

Fiber is also protective against other forms of cancer. Studies have shown that stomach cancer and

breast cancer are less common on high-fiber diets.2,3 Fiber affects levels of estrogens in the body.

Estrogens are normally secreted into the intestine, where the fiber binds with the hormone and moves

it out of the body.4 Without adequate fiber, the estrogen can be reabsorbed from the intestine into the

bloodstream. High levels of estrogen are linked to a higher risk of breast cancer.

In the U.S., the average daily fiber intake is 10 to 20 grams per day. Experts recommend 30 to 40

grams per day. The best sources of fiber are whole grains, beans, peas, lentils, vegetables, and fruits.

Foods that are closest to their natural state, unrefined and unpeeled, are highest in fiber.

Fat Raises Cancer Risks


17/47

Cross-cultural studies have revealed that the populations with the highest levels of fat consumption

are also the ones with the highest death rates from breast and colon cancer. The lowest rates are in

groups with the lowest consumption of fats.5 Migration studies help to rule out the influence of

genetics.6

Many studies indicate that fat in foods increases ones risk for cancer, and it may also adversely affect

breast cancer survival rates for those who have cancer.7

Although the total amount of fat one eats is of concern, there is evidence that animal fat is much more

harmful than vegetable fat. One study noted a 200 percent increase in breast cancer among those

who consume beef or pork five to six times per week. Dr. Sheila Bingham, a prominent cancer

researcher form the University of Cambridge, notes that meat is more closely associated with colon

cancer than any other factor.8 Meat and milk are also linked to both prostate and ovarian cancers.9

How Fat Affects Cancer Risks

Fat has many effects within the body. It increases hormone production and thus raises breast cancer

risks. It also stimulates the production of bile acids which have been linked to colon cancer.

The average diet in the U.S. is about 37 percent fat. The National Cancer Institute suggests that

people lower that percentage down to 30 percent; however, studies have shown that fat intake should

be well below 30 percent to have an anti-cancer affect. Ten to 15 percent is more likely to be helpful.

The Importance of Vegetables

Not only are vegetables low in fat and high in fiber, they also contain many cancer-fighting

substances. Carotenoids, the pigment that gives fruits and vegetables their dark colors, have beenshown to help prevent cancer. Beta-carotene, present in dark green and yellow vegetables, helps

protect against lung cancer and may help prevent cancers of the bladder, mouth, larynx, esophagus,

breast, and other sites.

Vegetables such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, turnips, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts contain flavones

and indoles which are thought to have anti-cancer activities.

Vitamin C, found in citrus fruits and many vegetables, may lower risks for cancers of the esophagus

and stomach. Vitamin C acts as an antioxidant, neutralizing cancer-causing chemicals that form in the

body. It also blocks the conversion of nitrates to cancer-causing nitrosamines in the stomach.

Selenium is found in whole grains and has the same antioxidant effects as vitamin C and beta-

carotene. Vitamin E also has this effect. Caution is advised in supplementing selenium, which is toxic

in large doses.

Alcohol


18/47

Excessive intake of alcohol raises ones risks for cancers of the breast, mouth, pharynx, and

esophagus. When combined with smoking, these risks skyrocket. It also raises risks for stomach, liver,

and colon cancers.10

Vegetarians Are Better Off

All the evidence points to a low-fat, high-fiber diet that includes a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole

grains, and beans, as being the best for cancer prevention. Not surprisingly, vegetarians, whose diets

easily meet these requirements, are at the lowest risk for cancer. Vegetarians have about half the

cancer risk of meat-eaters.11

Vegetarians have higher blood levels of beta-carotene. They consume more vitamin C, beta-carotene,

indoles, and fiber than meat-eaters. Vegetarians also have stronger immune systems. German

researchers recently discovered that vegetarians have more than twice the natural killer cell activity of

meat-eaters.12 Natural killer cells are specialized white blood cells that attack and neutralize cancer

cells. Also, vegetarians tend to eat more soy products than meat-eaters. Soybeans contain many

substances that are anticarcinogens, including lignans and phytoestrogens. A diet that is rich in

soybeans may be one reason for the lower incidence of breast cancer in Asia.

Conclusion

A cancer prevention diet is one that is high in fiber, low in fat (especially animal fat), and includes

generous portions of fruits and vegetables. It also minimizes or excludes alcohol. The best diets are

pure vegetarian diets.

References

1. Kritchevsky D. Diet, nutrition, and cancer: the role of fiber. Cancer 1986;58:1830-6.

2. Risch HA, Jain M, Choi NW, et al. Dietary factors and the incidence of cancer of the stomach. Am J Epidemiol

1985;122:947-59.

3. Lubin F, Wax Y, Modan B, et al. Role of fat, animal protein and dietary fiber in breast cancer etiology: a case control

study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1986;77:605-12.

4. Goldin BR, Adlercreutz H, Gorbach SL, et al. Estrogen excretion patterns and plasma levels in vegetarian and

omnivorous women. N Engl J Med 1982;307:1542-7.

5. Lan HW, Carpenter JT. Breast cancer: incidence, nutritional concerns, and treatment approaches. J Am Diet Assoc

1987;87:765-9.

6. Minowa M, Bingham S, Cummings JH. Dietary fiber intake in Japan. Human Nutr Appl Nutr 1983;37A:113-9.

7. Wynder EL, Rose DP, Cohen LA. Diet and breast cancer in causation and therapy. Cancer 1986;58:1804-13.8. Bingham SA. Meat, starch, and non-starch polysaccharides and bowel cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48:762-7.

9. Rose DP, Boyar AP, Wynder EL. International comparisons of mortality rates for cancer of the breast, ovary, prostate,

and colon, and per capita food consumption. Cancer 1986;58:2363-71.

10. Breslow NE, Enstrom JE. Geographic correlations between cancer mortality rates and alcohol-tobacco consumption in

the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 1974;53:631-9.

11. Phillips RL. Role of lifestyle and dietary habits in risk of cancer among Seventh-day Adventists. Cancer Res

1975;35(Suppl):3513-22.


19/47

12. Malter M. Natural killer cells, vitamins, and other blood components of vegetarian and omnivorous men. Nutr and

Cancer 1989;12:271-8.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, "Whats Wrong with Dairy Products"http://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.html

111898

1

Foods for Cancer

PreventionP H Y S I C I A N S C O M M I T T E E F O R R E S P O N S I B L E M E D I C I N E5 1 0 0 W I S C O N S I N A V E., N. W., S U I T E 4 0 4 W A S H I N G T O N, D C 2 0 0 1 6P H O N E ( 2 0 2 ) 6 8 6 - 2 2 1 0 F A X ( 2 0 2 ) 6 8 6 - 2 2 1 6 P C R M @ P C R M . O R G W W W . P CR M . O R G

Of the many diseases that affect people these days, canceris among the most feared. But despite a wealth ofscientific data, most people remain unaware of how

they can reduce their risk of developing cancer. According tothe National Cancer Institute, as much as 80 percent of allcancers are due to identified factors, and thus are potentially

preventable. Thirty percent are due to tobacco use, and asmuch as 35 to 50 percent are due to foods. It is easy to controlthese and other risk factors.

What Is Cancer?

Cancer begins as a single abnormal cell that begins to multiplyout of control. Groups of such cells form tumors

and invade healthy tissue, often spreading to other parts of thebody. Carcinogens are substances that promote the developmentof cancerous cells. They may come from foods, from theair, or even from within the body. Most carcinogens are neutralized

before damage can occur, but sometimes they attackthe cells genetic material (DNA) and alter it. It takes years for anoticeable tumor to develop. During this time, compounds
http://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.htmlhttp://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.htmlhttp://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.htmlhttp://pcrm.org/health/prevmed/foods_cancer_prev.html


20/47

known as inhibitors can keep the cells from growing. Somevitamins in plant foods are known to be inhibitors. Dietary fat,on the other hand, is known to be a promoter that helps theabnormal cells grow quickly.

Fiber Fights Cancer

In 1970, British physician, Dennis Burkitt, observed that ahigh-fiber diet reduces diseases of the digestive tract. Heobserved that in countries where diets are high in fiber (that is,

plant-based diets), there were fewer cases of colon cancer.Around the world, this has proven true. The highest fiberintakes are found in non-industrialized nations where meat isscarce and plant foods fill the menu. Animal products contain

no fiber. The U.S. and other Western nations whose diets arebased upon animal products have the highest rates of coloncancer.While no one is certain exactly how fiber protects againstdigestive tract disorders, there are several possibilities. By definition,fiber cannot be digested by humans early in the digestive

process. It moves food more quickly through the intestines,helping to eliminate carcinogens. It also draws water into thedigestive tract. The water and fiber make fecal matter bulkier,so carcinogens are diluted.Bile acids are secreted into the intestine to help digest fat;there, bacteria can change the acids into chemicals which promotecolon cancer. Fiber may bind with these bile acids andevict them from the intestines.1 Also, bacteria in the colonferment the fiber creating a more acidic environment whichmay make bile acids less toxic.Fiber is also protective against other forms of cancer. Studieshave shown that stomach cancer and breast cancer are lesscommon on high-fiber diets.2,3 Fiber affects levels of estrogens

in the body. Estrogens are normally secreted into the intestine,where the fiber binds with the hormone and moves it out of the

body.4 Without adequate fiber, the estrogen can be reabsorbedfrom the intestine into the bloodstream. High levels of estrogenare linked to a higher risk of breast cancer.In the U.S., the average daily fiber intake is 10 to 20 grams

per day. Experts recommend 30 to 40 grams per day. The best


21/47

sources of fiber are whole grains, beans, peas, lentils, vegetables,and fruits. Foods that are closest to their natural state, unrefinedand unpeeled, are highest in fiber.

Fat Raises Cancer Risk

Cross-cultural studies have revealed that the populationswith the highest levels of fat consumption are also the oneswith the highest death rates from breast and colon cancer. Thelowest rates are in groups with the lowest consumption of fats.5Migration studies help to rule out the influence of genetics.6Many studies indicate that fat in foods increases ones riskfor cancer, and it may also adversely affect breast cancer survivalrates for those who have cancer.7

Although the total amount of fat one eats is of concern,there is evidence that animal fat is much more harmful thanvegetable fat. One study noted a 200 percent increase in breastcancer among those who consume beef or pork five to six times

per week. Dr. Sheila Bingham, a prominent cancer researcherform the University of Cambridge, notes that meat is moreclosely associated with colon cancer than any other factor.81118982Meat and milk are also linked to both prostate and ovariancancers.9

How Fat Affects Cancer Risks

Fat has many effects within the body. It increases hormoneproduction and thus raises breast cancer risks. It also stimulates

the production of bile acids which have been linked tocolon cancer.The average diet in the U.S. is about 37 percent fat. The

National Cancer Institute suggests that people lower that percentagedown to 30 percent; however, studies have shown thatfat intake should be well below 30 percent to have an anticanceraffect. Ten to 15 percent is more likely to be helpful.


22/47

The Importance of Vegetables

Not only are vegetables low in fat and high in fiber, they alsocontain many cancer-fighting substances. Carotenoids,the pigment that gives fruits and vegetables their dark colors,have been shown to help prevent cancer. Beta-carotene, presentin dark green and yellow vegetables, helps protect against lungcancer and may help prevent cancers of the bladder, mouth,larynx, esophagus, breast, and other sites.Vegetables such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, turnips, cauliflower,and Brussels sprouts contain flavones and indoles whichare thought to have anti-cancer activities.Vitamin C, found in citrus fruits and many vegetables,may lower risks for cancers of the esophagus and stomach.Vitamin C acts as an antioxidant, neutralizing cancer-causing

chemicals that form in the body. It also blocks the conversionof nitrates to cancer-causing nitrosamines in the stomach.Selenium is found in whole grains and has the same antioxidanteffects as vitamin C and beta-carotene. Vitamin E alsohas this effect. Caution is advised in supplementing selenium,which is toxic in large doses.Alcohol

Excessive intake of alcohol raises ones risks for cancers ofthe breast, mouth, pharynx, and esophagus. When combinedwith smoking, these risks skyrocket. It also raises risksfor stomach, liver, and colon cancers.10Vegetarians Are Better Off

All the evidence points to a low-fat, high-fiber diet that includesa variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and

beans, as being the best for cancer prevention. Not surprisingly,vegetarians, whose diets easily meet these requirements, are atthe lowest risk for cancer. Vegetarians have about half thecancer risk of meat-eaters.11Vegetarians have higher blood levels of beta-carotene.

They consume more vitamin C, beta-carotene, indoles, andfiber than meat-eaters. Vegetarians also have stronger immunesystems. German researchers recently discovered thatvegetarians have more than twice the natural killer cell activityof meat-eaters.12 Natural killer cells are specialized white bloodcells that attack and neutralize cancer cells. Also, vegetarianstend to eat more soy products than meat-eaters. Soybeans


23/47

contain many substances that are anticarcinogens, includinglignans and phytoestrogens. A diet that is rich in soybeansmay be one reason for the lower incidence of breast cancer inAsia.Conclusion

Acancer prevention diet is one that is high in fiber, low in fat(especially animal fat), and includes generous portions offruits and vegetables. It also minimizes or excludes alcohol.The best diets are pure vegetarian diets.References1. Kritchevsky D. Diet, nutrition, and cancer: the role of fiber. Cancer1986;58:1830-6.2. Risch HA, Jain M, Choi NW, et al. Dietary factors and the incidenceof cancer of the stomach. Am J Epidemiol 1985;122:947-59.3. Lubin F, Wax Y, Modan B, et al. Role of fat, animal protein anddietary fiber in breast cancer etiology: a case control study. J NatlCancer Inst 1986;77:605-12.4. Goldin BR, Adlercreutz H, Gorbach SL, et al. Estrogen excretion

patterns and plasma levels in vegetarian and omnivorous women. NEngl J Med 1982;307:1542-7.5. Lan HW, Carpenter JT. Breast cancer: incidence, nutritional concerns,and treatment approaches. J Am Diet Assoc 1987;87:765-9.6. Minowa M, Bingham S, Cummings JH. Dietary fiber intake in Japan.Human Nutr Appl Nutr 1983;37A:113-9.7. Wynder EL, Rose DP, Cohen LA. Diet and breast cancer in causationand therapy. Cancer 1986;58:1804-13.8. Bingham SA. Meat, starch, and non-starch polysaccharides and

bowel cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48:762-7.9. Rose DP, Boyar AP, Wynder EL. International comparisons of mortalityrates for cancer of the breast, ovary, prostate, and colon, and

per capita food consumption. Cancer 1986;58:2363-71.10. Breslow NE, Enstrom JE. Geographic correlations between cancermortality rates and alcohol-tobacco consumption in the United States.J Natl Cancer Inst 1974;53:631-9.

11. Phillips RL. Role of lifestyle and dietary habits in risk of canceramong Seventh-day Adventists. Cancer Res 1975;35(Suppl):3513-22.12. Malter M. Natural killer cells, vitamins, and other blood componentsof vegetarian and omnivorous men. Nutr and Cancer

1989;12:271-8.

"Cancer and the Vegetarian Diet," by William Harris,M.D.http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm

December 21, 1999

Cancer and the Vegetarian Diet

by William Harris, M.D.

Cancer is not caused by bacteria, faulty diet, inadequate exercise,environmental contaminants, ionizing radiation, tobacco, viruses,
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm


24/47

nor heredity. Cancer is caused by a series of genetic mutations in DNA which may beeither germline (inherited) or somatic (acquired during life). However, the chances ofthese mutations occurring in sufficient number to result in cancer is affected by all ofthe preceding factors.

DNA is the critical target molecule in carcinogenesis (1). Although DNA has variousrepair mechanisms, some types of damage persist and become the basis of thedefective molecular biology that is cancer. Oncogenes (tumor genes), tumorsuppressing genes, and aptotic genes (causing programmed cell death) normallyinteract to build normal cells, to prevent excessive growth, and finally to kill the cell

before genetic mutations cause it to malfunction.

Table 1. U.S. cancer rates.

Cancer is the second most common cause of

death in the United States, where over 1.3million new cases of cancer are diagnosedannually, with 550,000 deaths. CurrentUnited States incidence figures for the tenleading types of cancer are shown (2).Women have an approximately 1:8 lifetimechance of developing breast cancer, and menhave an approximately 1:5 chance ofdeveloping prostate cancer. Rates above are

per 100,000 in 1992. Both Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma areincluded under lymphoma.

There are three categories of evidence suggesting that a veg*n (vegetarian or vegan)diet reduces risk for various types of cancer.

Epidemiologically, the intake of animal source food correlates with the country-by-country incidence of six types of cancer. Although none of the reporting countries can

be assumed to have large vegan or even vegetarian populations, it appears that the lessanimal source food per capita, the lower the cancer rate.

In the graphs below, the Y axis contains the disease, the X axis contains the animalsource dietary risk factor. R is the correlation coefficient which reflects the "goodnessof fit" of the data points to the sloping regression line. The p-value is the probabilitythe apparent relationship is merely a mathematical coincidence. An R of 1 wouldindicate a direct linear relationship, while an R of zero would indicate no relationship.A p-value of .05 indicates a 5% chance of mathematical coincidence but numbers lessthan .05 are traditionally taken to suggest a non-coincidental relationship.


25/47

A. Breast Cancer

The etiology of breast cancer, as with most cancer, is multi-factorial, with a stronghereditary component. Using BMDP (3) statistical software, I performed multipleregression analysis on breast cancer incidence(4) country by country using Food and

Agriculture Organization food consumption data (5) for animal source calcium,animal Calories, animal fat, animal protein, butter and ghee, cheese, eggs, milk

production (metric tons/yr), plant source calcium, plant fat, plant protein, plantCalories, total calcium, total fat, total Calories, and total protein.

I included additional vital statistics from The Book of World Rankings (6,7) for birthrate, female life expectancy, GNP/caput($), infant mortality, male life expectancy,male/female cancer ratios, meat consumption (kg/caput/yr early 70's), sugarconsumption (kg/caput/yr -1976), and total population.

Of these (sometimes not independent) variables, the highest correlation ( R=.76,p


26/47

Of the other positive correlations, animal source calcium had an R value of .62 andp=.0026. This would support the contention that dairy hormones are a risk for humanbreast cancer (8). Insulin-like growth factor (ISGF-1), present in both cow milk andhuman milk is known to stimulate the growth of human breast cancer cells (9, 10).

The vegetarian diet has been shown to lower the level of estradiol (11) (an estrogen)and raise sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels (12). Some forms of breastcancer are estrogen-receptor (ER) sensitive and the phytoestrogens from plant foods(13, 14), particularly soy products, are thought to block ERs in a manner similar totamoxifen. Lower post-treatment ER-rich breast cancer survival rates in women whoreported higher dietary fat intake have been found.(15)

Although the most recent pooled-analysis of fat intake as a risk factor for breastcancer produced negative results (16), a case-control study (17) conducted in Italy on2,569 incident cases of breast cancer and 2,588 controls found an odds ratio (OR) of

1.22 for saturated fat, and 0.89 for unsaturated fat.

B. Intestinal cancer


27/47

Intestinal cancer also correlates with animal food consumption (R=.83, p


28/47

Lung cancer mortality correlates with animal fat consumption (R=.71, p


29/47

In 1977 Cunningham (24) examined the correlation between age-adjusted lymphomamortality as reported by the WHO (25), and food intake as reported by the O.E.C.D.(26). Using multiple regression analysis for the intake of cereal grain, eggs, fish, nuts,

pork, potatoes, poultry, pulses, seeds, starches, animal protein, crop protein, and totalprotein, he found the highest positive correlation with beef and dairy protein intake

(R=.78, p


30/47


31/47

Surprisingly, multiple regression analysis of prostate cancer incidence (32) versus thesame dietary and social variables showed the highest correlation with animal sourcecalcium intake (R=.74, p


32/47


33/47

Fiber, plentiful in grains, is not a nutrient since it is not absorbed. It acts, in the wordsof one medical editor, as "a sort of colonic broom" and while this may beadvantageous, a repeat of the study, this time using fruits and vegetables, rather thanfiber, as dietary intake markers might produce more favorable results.

Steinmetz and Potter (41) report that the cancer protective substances in fruits andvegetables include, in addition to antioxidants, the following: allium compounds(diallyl sulfide, allyl methyl trisulfide), coumarins, dietary fiber, dithiolthiones,flavonoids (quercetin, kaempferol), folic acid, indole-3-carbinol, inositolhexaphosphate, genistein, biochanin A, isothiocyanates, sulphorophane, d-limonene,

phytosterols, protease inhibitors, and selenium.

The means by which these substances protect against cancer cell initiation includeeffects on cell differentiation, increased activity of enzymes that detoxify carcinogens,

blocked formation of nitrosamines, altered estrogen metabolism, altered colonic

milieu (including bacterial flora, bile acid composition, pH, fecal bulk), preservedintegrity of intracellular matrixes, effects on DNA methylation, maintenance ofnormal DNA repair, increased apoptosis (programmed cell death) of cancer cells, anddecreased cell proliferation.

Cancer cell metastasis may be blocked by a plant-based diet. German investigatorshave shown that vegetarian men have roughly twice the natural killer cell activity asage-matched omnivorous controls (42).

A recent study from Britain (43) concluded that: "Vegetables and fruit are almost

invariably protective for the major cancers. The evidence is best for a protective effectof vegetables in the large bowel and for fruits and vegetables in stomach cancer....High consumption of meat, especially red meat and processed meat, is linked withhigher risk of bowel, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. There is some evidenceof an association with lung cancer, and of an association of barbecued meat andoesophageal cancer." This study also concluded that "up to 80% of bowel and breastcancer may be preventable by dietary change."

Practical aspects of the veg*n (vegetarian or vegan) diet.

A straightforward and simple dictum is:

"Eat as wide a variety of plant foods in as unprocessed a form as possible."

-Susan Havala, R.D.


34/47

All the essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, and vitamins required in the humandiet are synthesized either by plants or micro-organisms (44), not by animals. Theessential inorganic nutrients (iron, calcium, zinc, etc.) were synthesized in nuclearfusion reactions that occurred in stars that blew up more than 5 billion years ago (45).The notion that veg*n diets are more likely than omnivorous ones to be nutrientdeficient is the result of sorting foods by nutrient/weight ratio. Since there is no RDAfor weight in the diet, while there is an RDA for Calories, a more rational approach tofood analysis is by nutrient/Calorie ratio, in which case it is seen that animal sourcefoods, because of their high fat content, have little advantage over plant foods (46).Although poorly designed veg*n diets have produced reports of nutritional deficiency,

particularly in children (47), the notion that vegans are more likely than omnivores tosuffer nutrient deficiencies is not supported by the literature (48). In general, a dietcentered on vegetables and fruit, preferably raw, with grains, nuts, seeds, and starchesused to fill in Calorie requirements will satisfy nutrient requirements, with theexception of Vitamin B12, which must be supplemented, at least until the scientificdust settles. Numerous vegetarian and vegan cookbooks and handbooks are availableand should be consulted by new veg*ns.

Conclusion

Evidence from a broad scientific literature suggests:

A. Rates for at least six common types of cancer, country by country, correlate withthe consumption of animal source food.

B. There is a modest negative correlation with these cancers and plant source foodconsumption.

C. A variety of phytochemicals present in plant foods have been demonstrated to beprotective against the DNA damage that leads to cancer.

D. The veg*n diet, extolled by its advocates for at least 150 years as a cancerpreventive strategy, is the logical end point of the dietary recommendations, nowmade by scientific organizations, to reduce animal food consumption.

E. A recent clinical review (49) concluded: "Up to 80% of bowel and breast cancermay be preventable by dietary change... Diet contributes to varying extent to the riskof many other cancers, including cancers of the lung, prostate, stomach, oesophagus,and pancreas... Generally, fruit, vegetables, and fibre have a protective effect, whereasred and processed meat increase the risk of developing cancer."


35/47

There are no logical arguments for the continued use of animal source food in thehuman diet. However, logic is not the key factor here. The United States Departmentof Agriculture (USDA) has shielded the meat and dairy industries from normal marketforces since at least the beginning of the Commodities Credit Corporation (CCC) in1933 (50), by giving direct price supports to dairy production, and de facto supports tothe meat industry in the form of feed grain price supports (51, 52).. In 1998 USDASecretary Dan Glickman bought up at least $250 million worth of beef, chicken, dairy,eggs, fish, lamb, and pork that could not be sold on an already flooded market. Thesegoods will be dumped into public feeding troughs such as the National School LunchProgram (53).

This is contrary to advice given by the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the USDA itself, to consume daily atleast five servings of fruit and vegetables. Only a third of the U.S. public is aware ofthe "5-A-Day" recommendation (54).

Vegetable and fruit growers have for the most part been excluded from supportprograms..."All crops may be harvested on flex acreage except...fruits andvegetables..." (55), and apparently don't want government assistance or large adcampaigns(56) to market their products. Evidence indicates that animal industrieshave exerted enormous pressure on the government for continuation of their supports(57). These industries then plow their profit margins into massive ad campaigns,nutritional "education", and political action to insure that their benefits will continue.

A glance at IRS Corporate Income Tax Form 1120 and most state corporate tax formsshows also that advertising is a tax deductible business expense. There is little doubtthat the animal food interests are taking full advantage of this as they suborn themedia, the nutritional establishment, and the government to push their wares on anaive public.

Until the government stops using public tax moneys to bail out the animal foodinterests and stops giving tax breaks for their massive advertising programs thatvirtually freeze vegetarian information out of the public consciousness, there is notmuch chance that we will see a reduction in cancer rates.

William Harris, M.D.

Medical Director

Kaiser-Permanente Vegan Lifestyle Clinic (VLC)

1765 Ala Moana Blvd. #1880


36/47

Honolulu, HI 96815

INTERNET:[email protected]

ENDNOTES

1 Murray RK, Granner DK, Mayes PA, and Rodwell VW.Harper'sBiochemistry.Appleton and Lange Norwalk, CT 1990. ISBN 0-8385-3640-9 p 653.

2 McPhee SJ, Papadakis, Gonzales, Tierney. Current Medical Diagnosis &Treatment(CMDT) on CD-ROM 1998. Appleton Lange 1998. Norwalk, 1990. ISBN0-8385-1480-4.

3 BMDP Statistical Software.BMDP New System for Windows v1.0 LosAngeles,1994. ISBN 0-935386-30-0.

4 Tominaga S., Aoki K, Fujimoto I, Kurihara M. Cancer Mortality and MorbidityStatistics Japan and the World -1994. Age adjusted breast cancerincidence/100,000/year 1983-87.Japan Scientific Societies Press CRC Press 2000Corporate Blvd., N.W. Boca Raton Fl 33431ISBN 0-8493-7748-X . Table I-13. p194.

5 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.FAO ProductionYearbook.Rome,1987

6 Kurian, George Thomas. The Book of WorldRankings. Facts on File Inc. 119 West

57th St. New York,N.Y.10019. 1979.ISBN 0-87196-394-9.

7 Kurian, George Thomas. The New Book of WorldRankings. Facts on File Inc. 460Park Ave. So. New York, N.Y. 10016. 1991 ISBN 0-8160-1931-2.

8 Outwater JL; Nicholson A; Barnard N.Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF-I, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis. Med Hypotheses (ENGLAND) Jun 1997, 48 (6)p453-61, ISSN 0306-9877.

9 Musgrove EA, Sutherland RL.Acute effects of growth factors on T-47D breast

cancer cell cycle progression. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A(16):2273-9.

10 Figueroa JA, Sharma J, Jackson JG, McDermott MJ, Hilsenbeck SG, YeeD.Recombinant insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 inhibits IGF-I, serum,and estrogen-dependent growth of MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. J Cell Physiol1993 Nov;157(2):229-36.


37/47

11 Prentice R, Thompson D, Clifford C, Gorbach S, Goldin B, Byar D.Dietary fatreduction and plasma estradiol concentration in healthy postmenopausal women. The

Women's Health Trial Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990 Jan 17;82(2):129-34.

12 Bennett FC; Ingram DM.Diet and female sex hormone concentrations: an

intervention study for the type of fat consumed. Am J Clin Nutr Nov 1990, 52 (5) p808-12, ISSN 0002-9165.

13 Reinli K, Block G.Phytoestrogen content of foods--a compendium of literaturevalues. Nutr Cancer 1996;26(2):123-48.

14 Adlercreutz H; Mousavi Y; Clark J; Hockerstedt K; Hamalainen E; Wahala K;Makela T; Hase T.Dietary phytoestrogens and cancer: in vitro and in vivo studies. JSteroid Biochem Mol Biol Mar 1992, 41 (3-8) p331-7, ISSN 0960-0760.

15 Holm LE, Nordevang E, Hjalmar ML, Lidbrink E, Callmer E, NilssonB. Treatment failure and dietary habits in women with breast cancer. J Natl CancerInst 1993 Jan 6;85(1):32-6.

16 Hunter DJ, Spiegelman D, Adami HO, Beeson L, van den Brandt PA, Folsom AR,Fraser GE, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Howe GR, et al. Cohort studies of fat intakeand the risk of breast cancer--a pooled analysis. N Engl J Med 1996 Feb8;334(6):356-61.

17 Decarli A, Favero A, La Vecchia C, Russo A, Ferraroni M, Negri E, Franceschi

SMacronutrients, energy intake, and breast cancer risk: implications from differentmodels. Epidemiology 1997 Jul;8(4):425-8

18 Wynder EL. The Dietary Environment and Cancer. J Amer Dietetic Assoc.1977;71:385-92.

19 Shils ME, Olson JA., Shike M. Modern nutrition in health and disease-8th ed. Lea& Febiger Malvern, PA. 1994. ISBN 0-8121-1485-X. p 580.

20 van Faassen A; Bol J; van Dokkum W; Pikaar NA; Ockhuizen T; Hermus RJ.Bile

acids, neutral steroids, and bacteria in feces as affected by a mixed, a lacto-ovovegetarian, and a vegan diet. Am J Clin Nutr Dec 1987, 46 (6) p 962-7, ISSN0002-9165.

21 Bingham SA, Pignatelli B, Pollock JRA, Ellul A, Mallaveille C, Gross G, etal.Does increased endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds in the human colon


38/47

explain the association between red meat and colon cancer? Carcinogenesis1996;17:515-23.

22 National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Rates and Risks:Cancer Death Rates Among 50 Countries (Age adjusted to the world standard)

4thEdition. Source: World Health Organization data as adapted by the AmericanCancer Society 1996. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Lung cancer p39.

23 World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research.Food,Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective. 1997 1759 R St. NWWashington, DC 20009. 178-FNS/F27 p 12.

24 Cunningham AS. Lymphomas and Animal-ProteinConsumption.Lancet.1976;Nov.27:1184-86.ISSN 0023-7507.

25 World Health Organization. Mortality from Malignant Neoplasms 1955-1965.Geneva, 1970.

26 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.) FoodConsumption Statistics 1955-1971. Paris, 1973.

27 Tavani A; Pregnolato A; Negri E; Franceschi S; Serraino D; Carbone A; LaVecchia C.Diet and risk of lymphoid neoplasms and soft tissue sarcomas. Nutr Cancer(UNITED STATES) 1997, 27 (3) p256-60, ISSN 0163-5581.

28 Tominaga S, Aoki K, Fujimoto I, Kurihara M. Cancer Mortality and MorbidityStatistics. Japan and the World-1994. Japan Scientific Societies Press CRC Press2000 Corporate Blvd., N.W. Boca Raton Fl 33431. ISBN 0-8493-7748-X. Table I-15

p 196. 1983-87.

29 Cramer DW; Harlow BL; Willett WC; Welch WR; Bell DA; Scully RE; Ng WG;

Knapp RC. Galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to the risk of ovariancancer. Lancet Jul 8 1989, 2 (8654) p 66-71, ISSN 0023-7507.

30 Karasik A, Menczer J, Pariente C, Kanety H.Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I)and IGF-binding protein-2 are increased in cyst fluids of epithelial ovarian cancer. JClin Endocrinol Metab 1994 Feb;78(2):271-6.


39/47

31 Risch HA; Jain M; Marrett LD; Howe GRDietary fat intake and risk of epithelialovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Sep 21 1994, 86 (18) p 1409-15, ISSN 0027-8874.

32 Tominaga S., Aoki K, Fujimoto I, Kurihara M. Cancer Mortality and MorbidityStatistics. Japan and the World-1994. Japan Scientific Societies Press CRC Press

2000 Corporate Blvd., N.W. Boca Raton Fl 33431ISBN 0-8493-7748-X . Table I-16.p 197. 1983-87. "Cancer mortality statistics in 33 countries of the world werecompiled and calculated from data edited from a magnetic tape copy of the WHO data

base of cancer mortality." All figures are age-adjusted and represent death rate per100,000 population.

33 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO ProductionYearbook.Rome, 1987. Calcium/caput/day-milligrams 1983-85. Table 109. p 252.

34 Le Marchand L; Kolonel LN; Wilkens LR; Myers BC; Hirohata T. Animal fat

consumption and prostate cancer: a prospective study in Hawaii. Epidemiology May1994, 5 (3) p 276-82, ISSN 1044-3983.

35 Mousavi Y, Adlercreutz H. Genistein is an effective stimulator of sex hormone-binding globulin production in hepatocarcinoma human liver cancer cells and

suppresses proliferation of these cells in culture. Steroids. Jul 1993, 58 (7) p 301-4,ISSN 0039-128X.

36 Mousavi Y, Adlercreutz H. Genistein is an effective stimulator of sex hormone-binding globulin production in hepatocarcinoma human liver cancer cells and

suppresses proliferation of these cells in culture. Steroids. Jul 1993, 58 (7) p 301-4,ISSN 0039-128X.

37 World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research. Food,Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective. 1997 1759 R St. NWWashington, DC 20009. 178-FNS/F27 pgs 10, 14.

38 Goodwin and Mercer.Introduction to Plant Biochemistry. Pergamon Press.Oxford,1983. p 562.

39 Salisbury FB, and Ross CW.Plant Physiology. Wadsworth Publishing Co.Belmont 1985. ISBN 0-534-04482-4 p 276.

40 Fuchs CS, Giovannucci E., Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Stampfer MJ, Rosner BR,Speizer FE, Willett WC.Dietary Fiber and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer andAdenoma in Women. N Engl J Med 1999;340:169-76.


40/47

41 Steinmetz (1)KA, Potter JD. Vegetables, fruit, and cancer prevention: a review.Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Oct 1996;(10): 1027(13).

42 Malter M; Schriever G; Eilber U. Natural killer cells, vitamins, and other bloodcomponents of vegetarian and omnivorous men. Nutr Cancer (UNITED STATES)

1989, 12 (3) pp 271-8, ISSN 0163-5581.

43 Cummings, JH, Bingham,SA.Diet and the prevention of cancer. BMJ1998;317:1636-1640.

44 Lindner M.Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism. Elsevier Science PublishingCo. New York, 1985. ISBN 0-444-01241-9 pp 70-71.

45 Random House.Random House Encyclopedia. New York, 1977. ISBN 0-394-40730-X. p 48.

46 Harris W. The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism. Hawaii Health Publishers. 1415Victoria St. Suite 1106. Honolulu, HI 96822-3663. ISBN 0-9646538-0-X. p 91.

47 Jacobs C, and Dwyer T. Vegetarian children: appropriate and inappropriatediets.Am J Clin Nutr. 1988;48(3):811.

48 Langley G. Vegan Nutrition, a Survey of Research. The Vegan Society. Oxford,1988. ISBN 0-907337-15-5.

49 Cummings JH, Bingham SA.Diet and the prevention of cancer. BMJ1998;317:1636-1640.

50 Luttrell, Clifton B. The High Cost of Farm Welfare. Cato Institute. Washington,1989. ISBN 0-932790-70-4. p 15.

51 United States Department of Agriculture.Agricultural Statistics, 1989. UnitedStates Government Printing Office. Washington, 1989. Table 623.

52 United States Department of Agriculture.History of Budgetary Expenditures of the

Commodity Credit Corporation: Fiscal Year 1990-1991 Actual. ASCS/BUD/CPBBook 3.p 2.

53 http://www.ams.usda.gov/cp/index.htm

54 http://dcp.nci.nih.gov/5aday/week98/CommunityKit98.html
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm#N_1_http://www.ams.usda.gov/cp/index.htmhttp://dcp.nci.nih.gov/5aday/week98/CommunityKit98.htmlhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm#N_1_http://www.ams.usda.gov/cp/index.htmhttp://dcp.nci.nih.gov/5aday/week98/CommunityKit98.html


41/47

55 ASCS Commodity Fact Sheet.Feed Grains: Summary of Support Program andRelated Information. United States Department of Agriculture. June 1991.

56 GAO/RCED-92-15. Generic Promotion of Produce. Resources,Community, andEconomic Division. United States General Accounting Office. Washington, 1991. P 2.

57 McMenamin M, and McNamara W. Milking the Public: Political Scandals of theDairy Lobby from L.B.J. to Jimmy Carter.Nelson-Hall. Chicago, 1980. ISBN 0-88229-552-7.

Statistics comparing breast cancer diagnoses toanimal-food intake

http://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm

Breast Cancer Statistics

"Cancer mortality statistics in 33 countries of the world were compiled and

calculated from data edited from a magnetic tape copy of the World Health

Organization (WHO) data base of cancer mortality." (1.)

Using this, I checked for correlations between female breast cancer mortality

rates in the 30 countries for which data was available, and food andenvironmental factors collected from various other sources (2, 3, 4).

The highest correlation (R=.79, p much less than .01) was between breast cancer

and animal source Calorie consumption (see graph below).
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm


42/47

There was a lower but still significant correlation between breast cancer

mortality and milk production (R=.55, p=.001). This would support the

hypothesis (5.) that estrogens and insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) in cow's milk

stimulate breast cancer. (see graph below)


43/47

Multiple regression analysis showed some additional correlations. A large

correlation coefficient (R) and a p value less than .05 suggests that there is a

significant statistical relationship between the dietary factor and the disease,

although it does not prove that the one causes the other. Negative R values

indicate an inverse relationship (e.g. the more vegetable source proteinconsumption, the lower the incidence of breast cancer).

Multiple regression by BMDP (5.):

Variable Partial_R p value

animal source calories/day 0.7897 1.3E-07

Animal fat/day (gm) 0.7807 2.1E-07

Total fat/day (gm) 0.7767 2.1E-07

Animal protein (gm/day) 0.7029 1.0E-05

Meat Kg/caput/year 0.6937 1.5E-05

Animal source calcium (mg/day) 0.6401 0.0001

Total Calories/day 0.6071 0.0003

Milk production (lbs/caput/day) 0.5521 0.0013

Total protein (gm/day) 0.533 0.002

GNP/cap($) 0.5268 0.0023

Female life expectancy (years) 0.4661 0.0082


44/47

Hen eggs (lbs/caput/day) 0.353 0.0514

Vegetable source calcium (mg/day) -0.1682 0.3657

Vegetable source Calories/day -0.2864 0.1182

Vegetable source protein (gm/day) -0.3607 0.0462

Infant mortality -0.4123 0.0212

William Harris, M.D.Medical DirectorKaiser-Permanente Vegan Lifestyle Clinic (VLC)1010 Pensacola StreetHonolulu, HI 96814(808) 597-2100 (W)

[email protected]

REFERENCES

(1.) Tominaga S., Aoki K, Fujimoto I, Kurihara M. Cancer Mortality and MorbidityStatistics, Japan and the World-1994.Japan Scientific Societies Press. CRC Press. 2000 Corporate Blvd., N.W. Boca RatonFl 33431. ISBN 0-8493-7748-X

(2.)Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Production

Yearbook. Rome, 1987.

(3.) Kurian, George Thomas. The Book of World Rankings. Facts on File Inc.119West 57th St. New York, N.Y. 10019.1979. ISBN 0-87196-394-9

(4.) Kurian, George Thomas. The New Book of World Rankings. Facts on FileInc.460 Park Ave. So. New York, N.Y.10016. 1991. ISBN 0-8160-1931-2.

(5.) Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF-I, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis.Outwater JL; Nicholson A; Barnard N. MedHypotheses (ENGLAND) Jun 1997, 48 (6) p453-61, ISSN 0306-9877.

(6.) BMDP Statistical Software. BMDP New System for Windows. Los Angeles,1994. ISBN 0-935386-30-0.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


45/47


46/47

Tonsillitishttp://www.healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc1303.htmWHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW

Tonsillitis (TON-sill-EYE-tis) is an infection of the tonsils--lumps of tissue at the back of the

throat that fight nose and throat infections and keep them from spreading to the neck,lungs, and bloodstream. Tonsillitis is a common problem in young children.

Causes

The infection can be caused by a variety of viruses and bacteria. It is spread from person to

person by coughing, sneezing, and touching.

Signs/SymptomsThere may be fever, sore throat, painful swallowing, headache, and sore muscles. The

youngster may vomit, have a stomach ache, or be sleepy. The tonsils may look red and

Documents

Dangers of Milk Consumption