From: hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: talk.politics.animals
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:53:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes (or does he?)...

>PCRM
>Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
>5100 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 404
>Washington, DC  20016
>(202)686-2210

If you are going to continue to be an advocate for PCRM, would you do me
the courtesy of telling whether or not you are a member of this
organization?  Since PCRM is allegedly a physician's organization, would
you also kindly tell me if you have any credentials in medicine?  I am
curious.

[With apologies to Mary Otto, I preflame myself:]

Hulsey Tactic 101: Encourage Wheeler to reveal that he is a member of
PCRM and not a physician, thus supporting AMA's claim that PCRM is a
"pseudo-physician's" group.

>[...]
>Because of nutritional concerns, including the risk of deficiencies in
>iron and other nutrients, the American Academy of Pediatrics
>recommended earlier this year that whole milk not be given to infants
>less than one year of age.

Notice that, when it suits your purpose, you and PCRM are gravely
concerned about nutrient deficiencies.  At other times, your vegan
mentality prevails.

My wife has a book on child care (What to Expect the First Year, Workman
Publishing, New York) that was published in 1989.  It cautions against
giving unmodified milk to infants less than one year old (page 254).

This information about infants and milk is not new.  It has been in the
popular press for three years, as I demonstrated.  Why, therefore, do
you and PCRM feel that it merits a press release?

>Milk is so low in iron that an infant would have to drink more than 31
>quarts of milk per day in order to get the U.S. Recommended Daily
>Allowance of 15 mg of iron.

If the regimens that you and PCRM recommend are judged by similar
criteria, you are in big trouble.  If vegans could eat their weight in
food daily, they would STILL not get the necessary amount of B12 in
their diet.

Hulsey Tactic 102:  Use PCRM's ludicrous "no problem, take a supplement"
vegocentric reasoning against them.

>In addition, milk can cause blood loss from the intestinal
>tract, depleting the body's iron. The reason for milk's tendency to
>cause blood loss is not known.

First, this *only* occurs in the minority of infants who are allergic to
milk.

Hulsey Tactic 103: Point out the obvious fact that PCRM attempts to
obscure.

Second, the reason for blood loss is known.  In an allergic person,
undigested food causes osmotic diarrhea.  The rapid passage of
undigested food abraids the gut lining, and the tender, fragile gut
ulcerates with the result of blood in the stool.

>Milk has also been implicated as a trigger for insulin-dependent
>diabetes, which affects approximately 1 million Americans.

You are here guilty of the same tactic that you and PCRM used to provide
bogus support for vegan dietary regimens.  You cite only the literature
that supports your position and ignore conflicting results in other
reports.

Scott et al. (Frontiers in Diabetes Research.  Lessons from animal
diabetes III; 1990, Smith-Gordon; Ed: E. Shafrir, pp. 192-194) found
that in the BB rat, basal rat chow diets were the most diabetogenic
(60.1%).  Semi-purified diets containing 5% w/w dried skim milk (NIH-07)
and 20% w/w hydrolyzed casein were less diabetogenic at 6.6 +/- 1.2 %
and 7.2 +/- 1.9 %, respectively.  The authors made two observations that
you and PCRM should note:

1. "Laboratory rodent feeds, based largely on a variety of plant
products, produce the maximum diabetes incidence in DP [diabetes-prone]
animals." Brackets mine.

2. "Others have suggested that antibodies to BSA could trigger diabetes
in these rats, but we have not seen any obvious relationship between the
presence or level of antibodies of casein, BSA, beta-lactoglobulin, or
gliadin and frequency of insulitis, diabetes incidence, or age of
onset."

In another study, Elliot and Bibby (op. cit., pp 195-197.) used the NOD
mouse, another model of IDDM.  Chow-fed animals had a diabetes incidence
of 22-42 %.  Mice fed Casein at 2, 10 and 20 % w/w had incidences of 19,
14 and 10 %, respectively (i.e., no significant difference).  NOD mice
fed Lactalbumin at 2 % w/w had a 0% rate of diabetes, significantly
lower (p < 0.05) than the chow controls.

These rodent data suggest that some components of milk are PROTECTIVE
against IDDM.

Hulsey Tactic 104: Give examples of findings contradictory to selective
citations from PCRM.

>Diabetes is the cause of half of all leg and foot amputations and
>causes blindness in 12,000 people yearly.

Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) and non-insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) are NOT the same disease, yet you and PCRM
would consider them as one when it suits your purpose.

The main purpose of this media circus is to scare people away from dairy
products so that the "rights" of cows won't be violated.  As I have
demonstrated above, the causal link between milk consumption and
diabetes is not unequivocally established.

I would have some respect for PCRM if it would simply admit in these
press releases that their recommendations are based, in part, upon their
concern for animals.

Instead, they pursue a trojan horse approach where their true intentions
as an animal "rights" organization are masked beneath the false
suggestion that they are a "physicians" organization concerned with
preventive medicine.

If PCRM is truly interested in preventive medicine and not simply
pursuing a Bambiphilic agenda, one would expect equal coverage for
possible adverse effects of consuming plant products.

Why, therefore, do you and PCRM ignore equally important and truly novel
reports concerning trans fatty acids in hydrogenated vegetable oils and
their adverse effect on serum cholesterol-lipoprotein profiles?

Hulsey Tactic 105: Remind everyone of PCRM's true agenda -- animal
"rights."

>Researchers have long suspected that milk proteins cause antibodies
>to form which, in genetically susceptible individuals, can destroy the
>insulin- producing cells of the pancreas. Of 142 diabetic children
>tested in a recent study, 100% had high levels of an antibody to a
>cow's milk protein.  Non-diabetic children were found to have the
>antibody only at very low levels.

In the 0-17 year age group, people with IDDM constitute between 0.06 and
0.13 percent of the American population (Diabetes Mellitus Theory and
Practice, Third Edition; Ellenberg and Rifkin, eds.; 1983, Medical
Examination Publishing Company).  This includes ALL forms of the
disease: viral, autoimmune, and gene defects in the pancreas.

Therefore, most people need not worry about drinking milk.

[Apologies to readers in other countries for my ethnocentricity.]

There is no evidence that people with a genetic predisposition for IDDM
can avoid the disease by avoiding milk.  As suggested previously in
another post, the prevalence of IDDM in subpopulations who do not drink
cow's milk suggests otherwise.

For example, in other studies ([1] Craighead, Am. J. Med. 70:127; 1981
[2] Gamble et al., Br. Med. J. 3:627; 1969 [3] Gamble et al. Br. Med. J.
4:260; 1973), infectious agents are suggested to be triggers for IDDM.
In these studies, children with IDDM had antibodies against viruses such
as Coxsackie B.  The evidence here for a causal effect is equally weak.

Hulsey Tactic 106: Remind everyone that, other than genetics, the causal
agent(s) for autoimmune IDDM have not been firmly established, so it is
not yet time for a press conference.

[OK, OK.  My motif of self-incineration has become tiring. I will rely
on my opponents to further barbecue this post.  After all, it too is an
animal product.]

>[...]
>Dr. Barnard says, "The dairy commercials tell us that 'Milk has
>something for every body.' What we didn't know was that that
>something' could be iron- deficiency, allergies, or even something as
>serious as insulin- dependent diabetes."

Because Dr. Barnard, the psychiatrist, has no credentials in nutrition,
and is primarily concerned with cows rather than children, why should
anyone take his nutrition advice seriously?

As a nutritionist, should I consider myself qualified to dispense
psychiatric advice?  Laws and ethics prevent me from doing this.
Unfortunately, there are no laws to prevent people like Barnard from
proclaiming themselves to be nutritionists.  Perhaps Russell Lawrence,
an aficionado of medical ethics, would care to comment on the
implications of spouting nutritional advice worldwide when one has no
formal training in the discipline.

Notice that when PCRM speaks, the ignorant, sensationalist press parrots
the information.  Responsible journalists should attempt to check out
such stories first.  Responsible journalists should mention that the
PCRM is an animal "rights" group so that the public can interpret their
information accordingly.

I don't think that the press would give such attention to a release by
the dairy industry, so why do they give so much attention to nutritional
advice from an animal "rights" organization that obviously has an
ulterior motive?

>Dr. Spock adds, "I'm not a nutrition researcher, but I'm a parent
>advisor, and I want to pass the word to parents that cow's milk from
>the carton has definite faults for some babies.  It causes intestinal
>blood loss, allergies, indigestion, and contributes to some cases of
>childhood diabetes.  Human milk is the right one for babies."

The phrase, "I'm not a nutrition researcher..." is one that Barnard
should use frequently.

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.

>[...]
>Also speaking at the press conference are dietitian Suzanne Havala, MS,
>RD;

Having one dietitian at the press conference does not indicate that a
majority of dietitians support these ideas.  Ms. Havala's adverse
opinion about dairy products is not shared by a majority of her peers.

Has anyone at PCRM bothered to ask *the president* of ADA what she
thinks about this?

>[...]
>The doctors' recommendations are:
>
>1.  Parents should be alerted to the potential risks to their
>    children from cow's milk products.
>
>2.  Cow's milk should not be required or recommended in government
>    guidelines.
>
>3.  Breast-feeding is the preferred method of infant feeding.  As
>    recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, whole cow's
>    milk should not be given to infants under one year of age
>    because of the risk of anemia.
>
>4.  Government programs, such as school lunch programs and the WIC
>    program, should be consistent with these recommendations.

Because these recommendations are for infants under one year of age, why
should any of these pronouncements apply to children of school age (#4)
or adults (#2)?

This is yet another PCRM tactic:  attempt to extend advice intended for
a segment of the population to the entire population.

>The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a non-profit
>organization in Washington, D.C., promoting preventive medicine, and
>dealing with issues in human and animal research, and medical care.
..............^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why does PCRM euphemistically disguise the fact that they are an animal
"rights" organization?  Have they suddenly realized the unpopularity of
the position?

>The group made headlines in 1991 with its proposal for the New Four
>Food Groups, a program calling for grains, vegetables, fruits, and
>legumes as the basis for a healthful diet.

The "New" food groups totally exclude animal products.  This is
consistent with the goals of an animal "rights" organization, but
inconsistent with the advice of leading authorities in nutrition.

The directors of PCRM have NO credentials in nutrition and NO authority
to countermand the recommendations of authorities such as NAS-NRC.

>
>                     MILK PROBLEMS IN BRIEF
>[...]
>     Cheddar Cheese:  74% fat
>     Butter:          100% fat

Notice how condemnation of milk has now become condemnation of all dairy
products.  Another PCRM tactic is here revealed:  take advice about a
particular animal food, and apply it to all related animal products.

>IRON-DEFICIENCY:  Milk is very low in iron.  To get the U.S.
>[...]
>
>DIABETES:  Of 142 diabetic children tested in a recent study, 100% had
>[...]
>
>Approximately 1 million Americans have insulin-dependent diabetes.
>[...]

Haven't we covered this above?  If PCRM's arguments were convincing,
they wouldn't need repetition.

>CALCIUM:  Green leafy vegetables such as kale are as good or better
>than milk as calcium sources.

Kale doesn't go as well with Cap'n Crunch, and minerals from plant
sources have mediocre if not abysmal bioavailability.

>CONTAMINANTS:  Milk is frequently contaminated with antibiotics and
>[...]
>than four times the label amount.

Another PCRM tactic:  When a one-sided consideration of dietary evidence
is insufficient, turn to a one-sided consideration of food safety.

>LACTOSE:  Many people of Asian and African heritage are unable to
>digest the milk sugar, lactose, which then causes diarrhea and gas. The
>lactose sugar when it is digested, releases galactose, a simple sugar
>which is linked to ovarian cancer and cataracts.

The fallacy of this statement has already been pointed out by another
sci.med.nutrition participant.  Ovarian cancer and cataracts are
problems only for milk drinkers with undiagnosed galactosemia.

>ALLERGIES:  Milk is one of the most common causes of food allergy.
>Often the symptoms are subtle and may not be attributed to milk for
>some time.

Yes, and some people have equivalent problems with plant foods.

>COLIC:  Milk proteins can cause colic, a digestive upset that bothers
>one in five infants.  Milk-drinking mothers can also pass cow's milk
>proteins to their breast-feeding infants.

By what mechanism does this occur?  My gut feeling, so to speak,
suggests that this claim is false.  Adults completely digest the
proteins in milk to their constituent amino acids then take these amino
acids to rebuild human milk proteins.

Assuming that there is some reference out there that suggests this, I
would ask how they determined that their anti-cow antibody would not
cross-react analogous human proteins?

>The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children
>(WIC) provides food for women and for children up to five years of age.
>[...]
>stabilize farm prices through the distribution of surplus foods." The
>program provides milk, cheese, fruit, juice, peanut butter, beans and
>peas.

What is wrong with this?  Are you and PCRM opposed to giving any food to
poor people, or just those naughty animal products?

Martin G. Hulsey (mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu)
Dept. Foods & Nutrition          Support animal research.
University of Georgia            Your life may depend on it.

To those so inclined, I wish you an enjoyable hunting season.
Xref: sparky sci.med.nutrition:833 talk.politics.animals:8760