From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: PCRM and milk (revisited)
Followup-To: rec.food.veg
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:53:24 GMT

   The following is from THE TUFTS DIET AND NUTRITION LETTER: Vol. 10,
   No. 10, December 1992, and is quoted without permission.  Note followup.

     WOULD CHILDREN BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT MILK?

	For more than 40 years and in 39 languages, the child-rearing
	classic "Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care" has advised parents to
	feed their little ones plenty of milk and other dairy products to
	insure proper growth.  Thus, more than a few eyebrows were raised
	when the book's trusted author, pediatrician Benjamin Spock, MD,
	recently allied himself with a group of physicians to warn parents
	that milk is dangerous to children's health.

	The group, known as the Physicians' Committee for Responsible
	Medicine, says parents should be aware that cow's milk poses undue
	risks to youngsters, including the risks of developing food allergies,
	juvenile diabetes, and iron deficiency.  Because of those hazards,
	the organization advises, the government should stop recommending
	milk in its guidelines for the public and should no longer serve it
	as part of feeding programs such as School Lunch and the Women's,
	Infants', and Children's (WIC) program.

	But don't take away your children's milk and cookies just yet.  The
	advice has met with strong opposition from a number of leading
	health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics,
	the American Dietetic Association, and the American Medical Asso-
	ciation.  Even Dr. Spock acknowledges that many of the headlines 
	generated by the new recommendations were "quite alarming."

	MILKING THE FACTS

	All concerned agree that the Physician's group did make one valid
	statement: cow's milk should not be given to a child under the age
	of one.  The reason is that it falls short in certain ingredients
	such as vitamins C and E and, in particular, iron.  But there's
	nothing new in that.  For years, pediatricians have advised parents
	to feed their babies either breast milk or iron-fortified formula
	rather than strtaight cow's milk during the first year of life to
	prevent problems such as iron-deficiency.  [Comment: another reason 
	may be that the infant gut is extremely permeable in order to allow
	absorption of antibodies from colostrum and breast milk to confer
	immunity to disease from mother to child, and this permeability,
	which disappears after one year, may allow bovine antigens to enter
	the bloodstream and increase the risk of later allergy.  There is
	little evidence that these proteins can be absorbed intact after the 
	gut has "closed."]

	Of course for children over the age of one who take in a variety
	of foods rather than rely mostly on one form of nourishment the way
	infants do, [the inclusion of] milk in the diet does not contribute
	to iron shortfalls -- or other nutritional compromises for that
	matter.  But the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine
	has skewed certain facts to make milk sound dangerous for them
	anyway.  For example, it points out that milk can cause an allergic
	reaction in children, which is true enough.  But it fails to note
	that true milk allergies are rare, occurring only in a very small
	percentage of the population -- certainly not great enough to 
	warrant milk's exclusion from the diets of millions of other
	healthy children, according to the American Academy of Allergy
	and Immunology.

	As for the allegation that milk can trigger diabetes, a preliminary
	study released earlier this year did suggest that a protein in
	milk may prompt the body to release substances that destroy its
	insulin-producing cells, thereby setting the stage for the insulin-
	dependent form of that disease.  But it is "far too early" to make
	dietary recommendations about excluding milk from the diet, says
	Sara King, research director of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation.
	Even if scientists were able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
	that milk is involved in diabetes, a process Ms. King believes
	would require another 5 to 10 years of research, the beverage would
	affect only those children with an inborn susceptibility to the
	disease.  In other words, SIMPLY DRINKING MILK WON'T CAUSE DIABETES
	IN AN OTHERWISE HEALTHY CHILD.  [...emphasis added...]

	The bottom line, as the American Academy of Pediatrics puts it, is
	that "most children grow and develop normally on a diet of which
	milk is a major component."  Even Dr. Spock says that he does not
	advocate the complete elimination of milk from all children's diets.
	Rather than meaning to alarm parents about milk, as the [PCRM] did,
	he simply wants to alert people to the potential problems associated
	with it.  For parents who remain nervous about serving milk, it's
	worth keeping in mind that heeding the [PCRM's] dietary advice is
	likely to do more harm than good; milk is one of the best sources
	of calcium -- the bone building material many children, even many
	milk drinkers, don't get enough of to begin with.

	The [PCRM] says children can obtain all the calcium they need by
	eating calcium-containing vegetables such as kale and broccoli.
	But a child would have to eat four to six cups of such vegetables
	daily to take in teh amount of calcium available in just two cups
	of milk.  And even if a youngster could be encouraged to eat such
	a large amount of leafy vegetables (good luck to any parent who
	plans on trying it), he still wouldn't be obtaining significant
	amounts of other essential nutrients present in milk, like riboflavin,
	vitamin D, and phosphorus.

	If you're wondering why the [PCRM] would risk deficiencies in those
	nutrients by advocating the elimination of milk and dairy foods,
	keep in mind that the group is an animal rights organization, which
	many critics contend is the reason for its nutritional agenda.  A
	second point to keep in mind: despite its title, THE [PCRM] REPRE-
	SENTS LESS THAN ONE EIGHTH OF ONE PERCENT OF PHYSICIANS IN THE U. S.
	[...emphasis added...]


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg