Milk: The Perfect Drink? preview July 22nd, 2009

Hello,
The following article is one that I am about to send to the publisher's. Regardless of your political view, I would deeply appreciate your opinion on the piece. My goal was to write a truthful research article on U.S. milk and dairy. If you find grammar errors or parts that don't flow, please either post a response to the blog or email me at csharits@comcast.net.


Milk: The Perfect Drink? (revised 07-23-09)
July 22nd, 2009
By Christopher Sharits

Milk: The Perfect Drink?

One phrase that adults always tell children regarding strong bones, healthy teeth, and strong bodies is “Eat your vegetables and drink your milk.” From the Food Triangle to high school health sciences, milk is pushed without question. “Milk; it does a body good” is a highly orchestrated myth. While milk may have been a wholesome drink around the turn of the 20th century, draconian advances in hormones and the institutional mechanized dairy farms of today have mutated a perceived staple. The dairy products of today likely contain a wide variety of harmful contaminants. The masquerade begins with the USDA recommendation that people drink three one-cup servings of dairy per day (that includes cheese and butter that have a concentrated equivalent). In the U.S., the average person drinks 23 gallons of milk per year (that does not include cheese and other dairy products). With a population of just over 300 million people, that's almost 7 billion gallons of milk alone (Allshouse and Putnam, 2003).

In the early 1980's, the production of milk exceeded our demand due to competition from soda and bottled water, decreased consumption, and inflated government price support. In an attempt to correct the surplus, the Government passed the “Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983” that required milk producers to allocate 15 cents per hundred weight or $75 million dollars for a national campaign to teach and promote milk consumption. In 1990, the Government passed “The Fluid Milk Act” which increased the generic marketing campaign to around $200 million per year (Blisard, 1999). The most successful generic milk ad campaign, and what is possibly the best ad campaign ever, is the “Got Milk?” campaign created by Jeff Manning from the Goodby, Silverstein & Partners ad agency in 1993. The campaign was originally targeted towards the California market, but it quickly went national, international, and even won the 1994 Cleo “Best in Show” award for advertising (Holt, 2002).

According to the International Dairy Foods Association, today's U.S. dairy market is estimated to be $70 billion dollars per year. In an attempt to protect that market, most commercial milk is pasteurized in order to kill off harmful bacteria like Campylobacter, E. Coli, Samonella, and Listeria. The heating and cooling process of pasteurization, first developed by Louis Pasteur in 1864, should kill most of the harmful organisms responsible for such diseases as listeriosis, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, diphtheria, and brucellosis (The Dangers of Raw Milk, 2006). Still, there is a strong potential for cross contamination from unsanitary production facilities and multi-use packaging systems.

Even with pasteurization, U.S. commercial milk still contains disturbing substances. In 1937, the bovine hormone was recognized as an agent to increase a cow's milk production. In 1993, the FDA approved the sale of the synthetic bovine growth hormone, rBST (aka. rBGH), to increase milk production by 10% to 15%. The U.S. Dairy Association and U.S. Government agencies argue that the cows that are injected with rBST still produce safe milk. While independent tests have been inconclusive, it is widely believed that rBST may increase the risk of mastitis and foot problems in cows and certain cancers in humans. Many insightful countries including Canada, the European Union, Australia as well as New Zealand have outlawed the sale of rBST. In addition, Dean Foods, Kroger (parent of King Soopers), Kirkland (parent of Safeway), Lucerne, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Costco, and even Starbucks have discontinued the sale of rBST milk. In an attempt to turn the tide on the resistance towards rBST, Monsanto, the producer of rBST and rBGH, has, up to this point, successfully lobbied and curtailed the labeling of dairy products containing the synthetic hormone, thus, making it impossible for consumers to distinguish between rBST dairy or non rBST dairy products (Fox, 2008).

According to the USDA, today's crowded and unsanitary dairy farms have to use antibiotics to protect their herds from mastitis and lameness. The USDA's list of various antibiotics used to treat dairy cows include Aminocyclitol, Aminoglycoside, Noncephalosporin beta-lactam, Cephalosporin, Florfenical, Lincosamide, Macrolide, Sulfanamide, and Tetracycline (Antibiotic Use on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002 and 2007, 2008). While some cows may be healthy, they still receive the antibiotics because they are in the cow feed. While the FDA claims that the antibiotic traces in milk are at acceptable levels, opponents fear that this practice may also increase human resistance to antibiotics. In regards to dioxins, a 2003 USDA research project concerning polychlorinated dioxins, furans, and biphenynls, reported that these toxic contaminants are concentrated in animal products and ultimately consumed by humans. The study determined that dairy cows fed contaminated feed excreted 30% of the digested dioxins in their milk (Dioxins and Other Environmental Contaminants in Food, 2003).

Milk can be contaminated with a variety of environmental infectious microbes including Bacillus cereus, Brucella, Campylobacter jejuni, Coxiella burnetii, E.Col 0157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Samonella, Staphylococcus aureus, and Yersinia enterocolitica (Koo, 2008). While pasteurization kills most of these microbes, cross contamination, process packaging, confined and horrid dairy cow living conditions can distribute these microbes back into the general milk supply.

Clearly, our idealistic visions of happy fat cows grazing to rolling hills of tall grass, has been shattered by the horrendous living and sanitation conditions on the vast majority of dairy farms.In the early 1900's, over half of the dairy milk was consumed on the dairy and most if not all lacked the artificially injected bovine hormones and didn't need so many antibiotics. Today, only 3% of milk is consumed on the host dairy. We are so disconnected from the realities of milk production, that we have failed to conduct our own due diligence process. We simply see milk and dairy as cleverly packaged groceries. Our dairy cows are so contaminated and weak that we need to pasteurize their milk, genetically increase their production, and fill them with antibiotics. Opponents to todays milk production claim that the increased antibiotics in cow feed will create our own resistance to those antibiotics. Keep in mind that dairy milk is also used for cream, butter, ice cream, cheese, yogurt, and too many manufactured foods to list. Also, consider some simple logic; humans are the only species to drink another species' milk and we are the only species that consumes dairy beyond infancy. Need milk? Try organic soy milk.

References:

Allshouse, Jane and Judy Putnam. (2003). “Trends in U.S. Per Capita Consumption of Dairy Products, 1909 to 2001.” Amber Waves. Retrieved July 18, 2009. From http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/June03/DataFeature/

“Antibiotic Use on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002 and 2007.” (November 2008). USDA/APHIS: info sheet PDF. Retrieved July 20, 2009. From http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/dairy/

Blisard, Noel. (July 1, 1999) “Advertising's Influence: The Case of Dairy Products.” Frozen Food Digest. Retrieved July 20, 2009. From http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/foodmanufacturing-fruit/286506-1.html

Fox, Colette. “Got rBST-Free Milk?.” (February 28th, 2008). ABC's Channel 7 News NYC's Green Living. Retrieved on July 20, 2009. From http://www.greenrightnow.com/wabc/2008/02/28/got-rbst-free-milk/

“Dioxins and Other Environmental Contaminants in Food.” USDA/ARS 2003 Annual Report. Retrieved July 20, 2009. From http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=404375&showpars=true&fy=2003

Holt, Douglas. “Got Milk?.” (2002). Advertising Educational Foundation. Retrieved July 20, 2009. From http://www.aef.com/on_campus/classroom/case_histories/3000

Koo, Ingrid, PhD. “Got Milk Microbes.” (2008). About.com: Infectious Diseases. Retrieved July 20, 2009. From http://infectiousdiseases.about.com/od/g/a/milkborne.htm

“The Dangers of Raw Milk: Unpasteurized Milk Can Pose a Serious Health Risk.” (October 2006). U.S. FDA. Retrieved July 20, 2009. From http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/rawmilk.html

July 12th 2009 IV Antibiotics and milk

Well, my biopsy infection got worse yesterday, so I had to go to the ER and get IV antibiotics. Had to return today for round two, but the infection is much better. Due to circumstances, I couldn't workout today and I can't swim until this wound heals completely, but I will go for a bike ride and the gym tomorrow.

Yesterday's meal at Sweet Tomato's may have been too much of a good thing. Either that or I'm retaining water. Either way, I weighed in at 340.4 today. I have faithfully adhered to the vegan life change since the 7th of July. I know I feel better intellectually having made the switch, but I wonder if I'll feel even better in a week or so.

In preparation for an article I'm writing about Milk Advertising, I'm doing research which includes the following notations: In 2005, the estimated dairy market in the U.S. alone is 70 billion dollars. In "A Bigger Bang for the Milk Advertising Buck?" by James G. Pritchett, Donald J. Liu, and Harry M. Kaiser ( http://commodity.aem.cornell.edu/nicpre/newslet/vol3no2/index.htm ) states that in 1997 "The national dairy promotion program (1983) raised about $200 million per year, the assessment funds activities such as nutrition research, education, promotion, and fluid milk advertising."

In "COW'S MILK IS FOR CALVES," Michael Dye writes, "Doctors say cow's milk can lead to iron deficiency anemia, allergies, diarrhea, heart disease, colic, cramps, gastrointestinal bleeding, sinusitis, skin rashes, acne, increased frequency of colds and flus, arthritis, diabetes, ear infections, osteoporosis, asthma, autoimmune diseases, and more, possibly even lung cancer, multiple sclerosis and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." Got Milk?
"...in 1974 the Federal Trade Commission felt compelled to take legal action against advertising claims made by the California Milk Producers. The ads claimed "Everybody Needs Milk." The FTC prosecuted the milk producers for "false, misleading and deceptive" advertising. A 1992 report in The New England Journal of Medicine also notes that cow's milk can contribute to juvenile diabetes and autoimmune diseases by impairing the ability of the pancreas to produce insulin."
http://www.all-creatures.org/cb/a-cowsmilk.html

According to an article on dairy, "Advertising's Influence: The Case of Dairy Products" By Noel Blisard, found at http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/food-manufacturing-fruit/286506-1.html , stated... "In the early 1980's, dairy farmers were producing more milk and dairy products than Americans were consuming. Part of the surplus was due to high Government dairy support prices which kept milk production high, and part was due to declining consumption of dairy products among consumers... To stem the continuing decline in dairy product consumption, many dairy farmers participated in local advertising campaigns to promote the positive benefits of dairy products. Generic advertising is used by a cooperative, or group of producers.

... Congress passed the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (known as the Dairy Act), which established a national program to increase consumption of milk and dairy products and reduce milk surpluses. This self-help program is funded by a mandatory 15-cents-per-hundred-weight assessment on all milk produced in the contiguous 48 states and marketed commercially by dairy farmers. It is administered by Dairy Management Incorporated (DMI), which is run by a board made up of dairy farmers to oversee the generic advertising campaigns. In 1996, $76.5 million was collected under the Dairy Act--a substantial increase over the $18.5 million spent on generic advertising in the year prior to the Dairy Act. The Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (called the Fluid Milk Act) established a second and separate dairy promotion and education program. In 1996, approximately $100 million was collected for the milk moustache campaign. Together, the Dairy and Fluid Milk Acts accounted for an estimated $179 million in additional fluid milk advertising expenditures in the 12 regions from September 1984 through September 1996. Generic advertising under the Dairy Act increased total U.S. retail cheese consumption by approximately 562 million pounds, or about 2% of total sales, from September 1984 to September 1996."
* The author is an agricultural economist with the Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA.3

Got Milk? Campaign history:
got milk? By Douglas B. Holt, L'Oreal Professor of Marketing, University of Oxford
http://www.aef.com/on_campus/classroom/case_histories/3000

In June 1993, Jeff Manning, Executive Director, was hired by the California Milk Processor Board (CMPB) to revive sagging milk consumption in California. A month later, he hired San Francisco ad agency Goodby, Silverstein & Partners to create a new ad campaign for milk. "We weren't going to turn around a 15-year decline in per capita in one year, but we did believe that at least for certain portions of the population, we could flatten it out and start to move it up," said Manning. Following Manning's lead, Jeff Goodby, the agency's co-founder and chief creative, had worked with a team of planners and creatives at his agency to create got milk?, a campaign that became one of the decade's most popular and critically-acclaimed ad campaigns.

Concerned with long-term declining milk sales, California's largest milk processors voted to fund a marketing board that would be charged with creating advertising dedicated to selling milk. The processors agreed to finance the California Milk Processor Board (2) by contributing three cents for every gallon of milk they processed. This assessment allowed for a $23 million/year marketing budget. On a per-capita basis (California's population was roughly 20% of the US), this budget approximated those of the largest national auto, beer, finance, and pharmaceutical brands. Manning 's research showed that 88% of milk was consumed in the home. He and Goodby agreed that their milk deprivation ads would incorporate this reality. The ads would show people running out of milk when they needed it most, in their homes. "The whole campaign was based on somebody sitting at home thirty feet from the fridge with the TV on," said Manning. "We wanted them to feel the pain."

Market research confirmed what Goodby and Manning had hoped for. Respondents indicated that drinking milk was becoming a fashionable thing to do. "Suddenly, drinking milk was cool," recalled Manning. Manning and Goodby were as buoyed by their campaign's popularity as they were with milk's improving sales. "The response came in waves. The advertising community was first and they loved it. Aaron Burr won the Best in Show award at the 1994 Clio Awards, the advertising industry's equivalent of the motion picture industry's Academy Awards, or Oscars. In 1994, California's milk sales increased for the first time in over a decade, to 755 million gallons from the previous year's 740 million. Within months, the "got milk?" advertisements became famous. In 2006, the Got Milk? campaign went after a new demographic with a series of Spanish-language ¿Toma Leche?