From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Milk and Diabetes. Was: talk.politics.animals
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:47:35 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're still evading the issue.  One of the authors of the July, 1992
rl> NEJM article that dealt with the link between milk and diabetes
rl> has stated that representatives of the dairy industry were
rl> interested in creating transgenic cattle for the sake of reducing
rl> the similarity between p69 on the pancreatic islets and bovine serum 
rl> albumin.  Why would dairy industry officials be interested in
rl> pursuing such a plan if the similarity between p69 and bovine serum
rl> albumin isn't one of the triggers of diabetes?

From article <1992Oct15.023723.10669@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> I am evading nothing.  
mh> 
mh> First, there is no verifiable evidence that dairy officials are 
mh> seriously pursuing such a plan.  Even if they are, there is no 
mh> evidence that they are "worried," as you suggest.  

Perhaps, but I find it difficult to believe that Dr. Dosch would 
lie about such encounters.

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.  

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?  

mh> Fourth, you should not consider it an unethical, sinister plot to 
mh> continue to sell milk to the *majority* of individuals who have no 
mh> genetic predisposition for diabetes, and who have no problems with milk 
mh> allergies.

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

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.

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.]

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

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".  

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.

> ... [insults deleted]

mh> 4.  They imply that these *unproven* hazards about milk consumption 
mh> would affect the entire population.  If true, these so-called hazards 
mh> would be a problem for, at most, 0.16% of the population of INFANTS 
mh> who are genetically predisposed for IDDM.

rl> Are you confusing "risk" with "incidence"?
rl> 
rl> According to the _Scientific American_ article that I cited 
rl> previously, approximately 25% of the population carries at least 
rl> one genetic marker for the disease, and 85% of the newly 
rl> diagnosed patients come from families with no history of the 
rl> disease.  This would lead me to conclude that the risk is far
rl> more widespread than you would have us believe.  

mh> If 25% of the population has a "marker" for IDDM, and only 0.16% 
mh> of the population develops the disease, then it isn't a very good 
mh> marker is it?  If a so-called risk factor is 156 times more 
mh> prevalent than the disease, then it isn't a strongly predictive 
mh> factor is it?  

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."

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

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ