From: hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Milk press conference
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:26:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


Russel Lawrence writes...

>mh> Second, there is no evidence that the transgenic experiment Dosch 
>mh> outlines (expressing altered BSA in a transgenic cow) would 
>mh> accomplish the intended goal (avoiding alleged "hazardous" 
>mh> autoimmunity to native BSA).  There is no evidence that the 
>mh> experimental protocol that would be required to accomplish this 
>mh> goal (i.e., expressing altered BSA and *simultaneously* 
>mh> suppressing endogenous native BSA) is feasible.  
>
>Your views about the feasibility of such a project aren't the 
>issue here.  Whether it's feasible or not, it would still be 
>dishonest for an organization to tell the parents of infants that 
>cow's milk is perfectly safe, while simultaneously exploring the 
>possibility of creating transgenic cattle to reduce the
>allegedly non-existent risk.  

Feasibility is not the issue, but it is relevant.  If the experiment 
Dosch proposed is unfeasable, I am less likely to believe that the dairy 
industry is interested in funding it, much less that they are "worried" 
about it. They get a large number of proposals, and fund only a fraction 
of those they receive.

>mh> Third, if the dairy industry wanted to pursue such research, they 
>mh> would not fund a clinical investigator at a hospital.  They would 
>mh> fund an animal scientist at an agricultural institution with a 
>mh> proven track record in transgenic experimentation.  This why I 
>mh> doubt that the dairy industry contacted Dosch with a *serious* 
>mh> interest in funding such a project.  They might have called Dosch 
>mh> to discuss his ideas concerning feasibility, but this again would 
>mh> not suggest that they are "worried." 
>
>You're missing the point.  Why would they bother to explore the 
>feasibility of a remedy, if the problem is non-existent?  

Before you can provide evidence that the dairy industry is seriously 
considering the experiment that Dosch describes, we cannot assume that 
they are "worried" about the "problem."  Until the "problem" IS proven 
it, for all practical purposes, is not a problem.  

>Is it ethical to sell milk to the 25% of the US population that 
>carries genetic markers for the disease?

No one is forced to buy or consume milk or meat.  You and your 
Bambiphilic comrades would force everyone to stop these practices if you 
could.

Is it ethical for you and PCRM to suggest that 100% of school-age 
children and adults should avoid milk when the investigator that you 
cite thinks otherwise?

>Is it truly unethical, as you allege, for a noted pediatrician like
>Benjamin Spock to warn the public about the health risks that you're 
>all-too-willing to dismiss as "bambiphillic" ?   Perhaps your 
>fondness for hunting and disaffection for "bambiphiles" has clouded
>your ability to judge the responsibility that Dr. Spock apparently
>owes to the many parents who've relied on his advice over the
>years.

Wrong again Russell.  Your preoccupation with dirt-eating vegan apes and 
disaffection for industry-funded transgenic research clouded your 
ability to interpret my original post:

I APPROVED of what Dr. Spock said.  My original comments about Dr. Spock 
were as follows:

++++++++++++++++++

Notice also that Spock says "cow's milk *from the carton* has definite
faults for *some* babies." (emphasis mine)  This implies that [1] only
"some" infants have such problems and [2] there is no problem with
processed infant formulas containing components of cow's milk.

++++++++++++++++++

If we briefly contrast what Spock said with what other parts of the PCRM 
press release said, my objections about PCRM tactics become clear:

First, Spock prefaced his comments with the disclaimer that he was not a 
nutrition researcher.  He thereby avoided the ethical dilemma that you 
(who are otherwise vociferous and thorough in your responses) are 
absolutely terrified to discuss.  That is, the ethical implication of 
pseudo-nutritionists practicing nutrition.

Second, Spock did not, unlike PCRM, attempt to take advice intended for 
infants, and suggest that dietary recommendations should be modified for 
school-age children and adults.

>mh> Even those researchers who suggest that there *might* be a link 
>mh> between milk drinking and diabetes indicate that it is not time 
>mh> to make public recommendations to avoid milk.  Why do you not 
>mh> consider it unethical and sinister for PCRM to make 
>mh> recommendations that exceed the suggestions of the scientists 
>mh> they cite?  
>
>Bear in mind that the authors of the July NEJM article were not 
>the only researchers who've found evidence of a link between milk 
>and diabetes.  In a chart provided by _Diabetes Care_, 1991, and 
>republished in _Scientific American_ (October, 1992), a plot of 
>the annual incidence of diabetes against annual milk consumption 
>looks remarkably like a straight line.  Japan is near the point 
>of origin with annual milk consumption of less than 50 liters per 
>person and very little incidence of diabetes;  Finland is near 
>the top with an approximate consumption of roughly 250 liters per 
>person and approximately 30 newly diagnosed cases per year per 
>100,000 people.  [Lest this last number seem small, let's not forget
>that we're talking about a life-long disease here.]

Let me remind you that IDDM is a "life-long disease" only thanks to the 
Nobel-winning animal research done by Banting & Best in 1925.  Prior to 
the availability of Insulin, most persons who contracted IDDM died 
shortly thereafter.

If Bambiphiles had sucessfully banned animal research prior to that 
time, we would not be having this exchange today.  Over one million of
us (those with IDDM and those having ancestors with IDDM) would not be
alive today.

I do not discount the epidemiological data suggesting a link between 
diabetes and milk consumption.  These and clinical data provide 
additional support for the long-standing recommendation to give infants 
human milk instead of cow's milk prior to "gut closure."

Where Dosch and I differ from PCRM and (presumably) you is that we do 
not believe these data indicate that we should recommend against 
drinking milk as school-age children or adults.

>Would you agree with me that parents have a right to review this
>information before making decisions?

The public depends on equitable interpretation of scientific results, 
but they will apparently not get it from PCRM.  This association between 
milk & diabetes is not conclusive, and will apply only to infants when 
and if it is conclusive.  Therefore, the PCRM does not have the right to 
alarm people beforehand, especially when it is obvious that cows are 
their primary concern.  The PCRM does not have the right to deceive the 
public by extending information about infants to school-age children and 
adults.

>rl> ... [character assaults on PCRM deleted]
>
>mh> If you think that my statements are mere "character assaults," 
>mh> then why don't you provide some evidence to rebut them?  You 
>mh> obviously cannot.  
>
>Why don't we ask usenet readers who have a special interest in
>this matter to review the article in question, and take a brief 
>look at the 36 references cited by the authors in their 
>bibliography?  I'm sure that most intelligent readers can decide 
>for themselves whether PCRM's warning was "unethical".  

Sure, they could do that.  Those who have a bit less free time than you
could instead read the Scientific American article that you cited.

Dosch clearly indicates that there is no basis in his data for changing
advice about milk consumption.  Why should PCRM's interpretation of
these data differ?  Why should yours?

Given the fact that *existing* recommendations suggested that infants 
under one year should be given mother's milk and not cow's milk, and 
given the fact that the PCRM attempted to apply advice for infants to 
school-age children and adults, how can you suggest that PCRM was more 
interested in people than cows when they formulated their press release?

>See  Karjalainen, Jukka et al.  "A Bovine Albumin Peptide as a
>Possible Trigger of Insulin-dependent Diabetes Mellitus".  New
>England Journal of Medicine, July 30, 1992.
>
>When they've finished, we can give them some pointers to the
>China Health Project and the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study
>and the Framingham Study and give them a chance to re-evaluate
>the desirability of the 35% fat-calories in "low fat" milk.

None of the studies you cite here suggest that dairy products are not 
beneficial parts of healthy diets conforming to NAS-NRC dietary 
guidelines.

The fact that you and PCRM would warn people about relatively innocuous 
low-fat milk without also warning about more hazardous plant products 
such as margarine (100% fat, with those nasty trans fatty acids) further 
indicates your Bambiphilic agenda.

>> ... [insults deleted]

[accurate observation re-inserted]

>>Why do you so strenuously avoid the intended topic of this thread and 
>>divert the discussion to ape nutrition and pica?  You obviously have 
>>nothing to contribute to the intended topic. 

The fact that you ultimately followed my suggestion and split your dirt-
eating, vegan-ape nonsense into another thread confirms my observation.

>To quote the authors, "We postulated that in an immune system able
>to process, present, and recognize [bovine serum albumin], specific
>immune memory is established at the time of dietary exposure to 
>cow's milk.  In this context, the timing of gut closure, the 
>predominance early in life of digestive enzymes such as trypsin
>(which leaves much of the [bovine serum albumin] intact and
>perhaps gastrointestinal infections, as well as oral tolerance
>mechanisms, must collaborate to allow the initiation of the 
>anti-[bovine serum albumin] response.  Thereafter, the induction
>of p69 expression by interferon gamma generated during variable,
>etiologically unrelated infectious episodes would become the 
>slow pacemaker of the development of diabetes."

I hope that you and all of your animal activist pals out here will 
recognize the contribution of animal experimentation to the elaboration 
of this mechanism, but I seriously doubt that you will.

I'm not trying to diminish the significant contribution of clinical and 
epidemiological research, but If we remove the knowledge that animal 
research contributed to this picture, we are left with a fuzzy picture.

If you think that animal research is unethical, are you not inconsistent 
unless you restrict your arguments to that which may be proven without 
the knowledge gained by animal research?  If you did restrict your 
arguments as such, perhaps you wouldn't gobble up nearly 30% of T.P.A. 
bandwidth.

>Yes, there are other variables at work here, but the kingpin
>appears to be cow's milk.  

When and if Dosch becomes convinced that milk is the "kingpin," so will 
I.  Neither you nor the PCRM are qualified to suggest this before he 
does.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition