From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: press conference on diabetes and milk
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:57:17 GMT


[re transgenic cattle to reduce the hazards of milk consumption]

From article <1992Oct16.042638.4667@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Feasibility is not the issue, but it is relevant.  If the 
mh> experiment Dosch proposed is unfeasable, I am less likely to 
mh> believe that the dairy industry is interested in funding it, much 
mh> less that they are "worried" about it.  They get a large number 
mh> of proposals, and fund only a fraction of those they receive.  

You're still missing the point.  As represented in Scientific 
American, Dosch didn't state that he had proposed the development 
of transgenic cattle.  Rather, he said that spokespersons from 
several dairy and cattle organisations had contacted him to 
inquire about this possibility.  You may not like it, but their
out-going interests in such matters demonstrates that they're taking 
the evidence seriously.

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

I'm not so sure I understand what you're trying to say here.  The 
July (92) article from the New England Journal of Medicine isn't 
the only evidence pointing to a link between milk and diabetes.  
Its significance lies in the fact that it showed precisely how 
milk apparently causes the disease.  

Now it may be true that Dosch had either lied or misrepresented 
the facts in stating that dairy industry folks had contacted him 
about solutions to the problem.  Frankly, I don't see how or why 
he would make such statements if they weren't true.  And, if his 
statements are true, they raise serious doubts about the ethical 
soundness of ad slogans like, "Milk, it does a body good".  

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

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

I agree with you that no one is forced to buy or consume milk,
nor was anyone forced to attend PCRM's press conference.

However, I'm not convinced that consumers are fully aware of the 
problems associated with diet.  To illustrate, many americans are 
still unaware of the health significance of animal fats in spite 
of the Framingham Study, the Boston Nurses Study, the China 
Health Study, etc etc.  Over the past few weeks, most of the 
people that I've queried concerning the milk/diabetes connection 
were completely unaware of the growing body of evidence.

We can only hope that the New England Journal of Medicine 
article, the discussion in Scientific American, and the PCRM 
conference may help to focus more public attention on the 
problems associated with milk and dairy consumption, thereby 
giving consumers the ability to make informed decisions.  

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

I'm not saying that 100% of school-age children should avoid 
milk.  The evidence suggests, however, that milk and dairy 
consumption in the US has contributed, at least in part, to our 
growing health problems.  The evidence also suggests that milk is 
the trigger for insulin-dependent diabetes and that it might be 
difficult (if not impossible) to determine in advance who would 
or wouldn't be obliged to take insulin for a lifetime thanks to 
the consumption of cow's milk as an infant.  

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

I have a problem with your assumption that only a "nutritionist",
whatever that is, is qualified to discuss nutrition.  Frankly, 
Spock could turn around and observe that you're neither an MD nor 
a pediatrician nor an expert in the field of public health.  
Worse, he could point out that you're not even a registered 
dietitian.  Of course, your lack of credentials doesn't mean that 
you're behaving unethically in discussing your views, nor does it 
mean that your facts or your opinions are somehow tainted by the 
fact that you're not a pediatrician.   

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

Let's bear in mind that diabetes isn't the only problem 
associated with milk consumption.  I'm sure that a few glasses 
now and then are unlikely to hurt most adults.  Unfortunately, 
most adults don't simply consume a few glasses now and then.  To 
the contrary, most americans consume milk and cheese on a daily 
basis, if not with every meal.  Of course, we can't point to a 
single glass of milk and say, "it's gonna cause heart disease", 
just as we can't point to a single cigarette and say, "it's gonna 
cause cancer".  On the other hand, we can and should look at 
lifelong habits and comment on the associated risks.  

Do you dispute the finding of the China Health Study that the 
incidence of heart disease and diabetes (in adults) rose with fat 
consumption, protein consumption, and blood cholesterol?  

Would you be in favor of new label regulations requiring, not 
just the weight of the fat contained in a given food, but the % 
of calories attributable to the fat as opposed to the carbohydrate?  

Two more points:

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

Wrong.  Dosch stated that it was too early to impose a ban.  He
didn't say that it was too early to re-evaluate the way we look at
milk.

He also stated that a comprehensive dairy ban might be 
ineffective because cow's milk and other dairy products are 
ubiquitous in our society.  Hence, the search for a vaccine and/or 
transgenic cattle.  

Even the AMA has apparently accepted the hypothesis of the link
between milk and diabetes.  They issued this statement in response
to the PCRM press conference:

=====================================================================
   "For instance, we know that whole milk has the potential for
causing health problems in children up to 12 months and that breast
milk is recommended during that period.  However, whole milk has been
found to be nutritious for children 12 to 24 months and milk products
for children 24 months or older."
=====================================================================

Unfortunately, they didn't bother to tell consumers what
the Scientific American article made clear:  

=====================================================================
   "... some evidence suggests [that] dairy products in the diet 
    of the mother can sometimes pass into breast milk."  
=====================================================================

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

Wrong again.

What makes you think that PCRM hasn't made a public statement
concerning the hazards associated with some vegetable fats?   
[they have]

What makes you think that I consume margarine or recommend its use?
[I don't]

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