About cow's milk...

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030321.html

I read with interest your response about the dangers of consuming cow’s milk. While I do drink cow’s milk, I completely understand why people avoid it, and I am extremely disappointed that you ignored one major point: HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CONSUME COW’S MILK (OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL’S MILK).

Humans are meant to consume (breast)milk from their (human) mother. For how long? Well that depends on the mother and baby. According to the most recent statement of the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics), “Human milk is the preferred feeding for all infants, including premature and sick newborns, with rare exceptions…It is recommended that breastfeeding continue for at least 12 months, and thereafter for as long as mutually desired.” [A.A.P. Breastfeeding Policy Statement: Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk (http://www.aap.org/policy/re9729.html)] The WHO (World Health Organization) recommends at least 2 years. However, the benefits of breastmilk continue as long as the baby breastfeeds. Yes, even a 5-year-old who breastfeeds gets nutrition and other benefits from breastmilk.

The benefits of breastmilk are countless (and yet to be completely discovered), but they include: satisfy baby’s emotional needs; perfect infant nutrition (it always contains the right proprotions of fat, carbohydrates and protein); provides immunities to diseases and aids in the development of baby’s immune system; lowers risk of baby developing conditions such as ear infections, asthma, bacterial meningitis; lowers risk of SIDS; protection from obesity later in life; facilitates proper jaw and dental development; etc. I could make a list ad infinitum. There are also countless benefits for the mother, including lowered risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer.

Cow’s milk was made for baby cows. “Cows milk is designed to help put on weight quickly, grow amazingly fast, and develop only as much brain power as a cow needs. The natural hormones in cows milk are geared toward cows, not humans.” (ProMoM, Inc. - 101 Reasons to Breastfeed Your Child)

If you think about it, it’s actually quite disgusting that we consume cow’s milk. Blech, it’s made from a lactating cow for her cow babies. Personally, I’m not ready to give up cheese and sour cream, but at least I understand that I was not MEANT to consume them. My 6-month-old daughter is exclusively breastfed, and I will probably NEVER give her cow’s milk (or any other animal’s milk)—maybe when she is much older (like 5 or 6 years old) and weaned and her gastro-intestinal system is fully developed and able to digest a wider variety of foods.

I’m very disappointed that you excluded these facts from your response.

2

More to the point: Humans are not designed. Evolution does not “intend” or “mean” anything of organisms.

If we ate exclusively those things that we evolved on, we’d have to give up a lot more than milk. We’d also have to say goodbye to corn, and potatoes, and tomatoes, and squash, and chocolate, and rice, and a lot of other things, as well.

3

Hmmmm. My daughter (19 months) has been drinking cows milk for over half a year now, and she has no problems with it. Perhaps it depends not upon the sensitivity of the child, but the hypersensitivity of the parent?

4

Indeed, Chronos. To further your thought, humans are also not “designed” to eat legumes (too hard to chew and cooking is unnatural), bread (it’s utterly unnatural, all that grinding, mixing, kneading and cooking–to say nothing of our enslavement of innocent yeast that we then murder), tofu, or tempe (horribly unnatural, both of them). Likewise, we are not “designed” to take antibiotics. We are “designed” to breed in early to middle adolescence and die by the age of 40 to 50. I wonder how many people who stupidly rant on about how we are not “designed” to drink bovine (or caprine) milk are willing to volunteer their children as breedstock at the age of 14 and will properly eliminate themselves from the population at the age of 45.

After all, anything else would be “unnatural” and against what we are “designed” to be.

5

You slipped in ahead of me, Chronos. Unfair.

Humans are omnivores. We can - and do, somewhere, at some time - eat almost anything that is animal or vegetable and found on the planet.

Breastfeeding is a good thing, and I’d certainly recommend for all those who can do so. But if you can’t, for whatever reason, babies can and do thrive on cow’s milk formula, soy milk formula, and specialized feeding formulas. (And other milks in other countries than the US.)

The notion that humans are not designed to drink cow’s milk is one of the odder and more strident bits of propaganda that the anti-milk forces are pushing. Most of them do not have the good sense of CorvusMellori, who at least understands that the real issue is one of breastfeeding and not one of avoiding all dairy products at all times forever.

So welcome to the SDMB, CorvusMellori. I’m impressed that you linked to the column and provided cites to back up your post. You’re already way ahead of most new posters here.

Just to defend the column, though: Please note that it was mainly about cow’s milk consumption by adults, not infants. And the anti-milk forces are making a huge number of claims which cannot currently be backed up by solid data. Reality is hard to come by these days, and the SD is a good place to turn.

6

Yes, I was talking mostly about dairy consumption by infants… cow’s milk is made for baby cows. Human milk is made for human babies.

I understand that humans are omnivores… but I don’t think that translates to MILK. Milk is technically for babies. It is their only natural way of attaining nutrients. That’s why, although the column was mainly about adults, I brought in breastfeeding. Nature intended milk for babies, not for adults.

And sorry, but you’re completely wrong in the above quote. Infant formula, also known as artificial baby milk, is NOT an adequate substitute for breastmilk; it is not even a close second. It is, in fact, the World Health Organization’s 4th choice for infant feeding. First choice is breastfeeding directly from the source, 2nd choice is pumped breastmilk fed via bottle, 3rd choice is pumped breastmilk fed via cup or syringe, and 4th choice is formula (in countries where water is considered clean). Babies don’t “thrive” on formula; they survive. (And many don’t even survive on formula… many babies die each year for reasons directly attributed to formula.) If you want your baby to thrive, your best choice is breastmilk.

Also, it is only a very small percentage of women (less than 1%) who TRULY cannot breastfeed. Most breastfeeding problems can be fixed with the help of a qualified IBCLC (internationally board certificied lactation consultant). Unfortunately, too many people give up too soon and say that they “can’t” do it.

Alas, I’m veering off the original subject. But I just think it’s important to note that milk is not intended for adults. It is species-specific and made for babies.

And to the person who said we’d have to give up lots of foods that we’re not intended to eat… I agree. That’s part of the reason I still consume milk. However, at least I attain some nutrition from milk… with corn I do not. Corn always comes out looking exactly as it did when you took it in. You don’t digest it at all and therefore get no nutrients from it… so why bother eating it?

7

I disagree. Nature/evolution, however you want to name it, designs species. I don’t mean that in the active sense of the verb, the way I’d mean it when I talk about the web site that I designed.

I’m not sure I can really articulate exactly how I mean the word “design” here. But let me put it this way: survival of the fittest… in order to be as “fit” as possible (for humans that could mean being smart, for certain kinds of animals that could mean being fast, for other animals it could mean being large and strong, etc), the babies need to consume the milk that was made FOR them… via their mothers. If I fed my baby cat’s milk, she would probably not survive. Well, she might survive, but she certainly wouldn’t thrive. That milk was made for kittens; it meets all the nutritional needs of a kitten. It does not meet the nutritional needs of a human baby. So why do people think it’s ok to feed cow’s milk to a baby? (Artificial baby milk is usually made of cow’s milk, except for soy milk obviously. Soy milk, however, also poses health hazards to human babies. New studies are showing this.)

8

“And sorry, but you’re completely wrong in the above quote. Infant formula, also known as artificial baby milk, is NOT an adequate substitute for breastmilk; it is not even a close second. It is, in fact, the World Health Organization’s 4th choice for infant feeding. First choice is breastfeeding directly from the source, 2nd choice is pumped breastmilk fed via bottle, 3rd choice is pumped breastmilk fed via cup or syringe, and 4th choice is formula (in countries where water is considered clean).”

From what I’m reading, choice 1 is breastmilk, choice 2 is breastmilk, choice 3 is breastmilk, choice 4 is formula. :rolleyes:

9

"Babies don’t “thrive” on formula; they survive. "

My daughter thrived on formula, thank you very much.

10

That’s absolutely correct. Formula is the 4th choice, not 2nd. :wink:

Well, I didn’t intend to turn this into a debate on breastmilk vs formula—believe me, if you are trying to debate that formula is just as good as breastmilk, you will lose the debate. Science is on my side.

FYI, one of the main ingredients in artificial baby milk is vegetable oil—hardly nutritious. If you don’t believe me, here is the ingredient list from a very commonly used formula:

Nestlé Carnation Good Start powder ingredients:
Enzymatically Hydrolyzed Reduced Minerals Whey Protein Concentrate (From Cow’s Milk), Vegetable Oils (Palm Olein, Soy, Coconut, High-Oleic Safflower), Lactose, Corn Maltodextrin, Minerals (Potassium Citrate, Calcium Chloride, Calcium Phosphate, Potassium Phosphate, Sodium Citrate, Magnesium Chloride, Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Sulfate, Sodium Chloride, Copper Sulfate, Potassium Iodide, Manganese Sulfate), Soy Lecithin, Vitamins (Sodium Ascorbate, Inositol, Choline Bitartrate, Alpha-Tocopheryl Acetate, Niacinamide, Calcium Pantothenate, Riboflavin, Vitamin A Acetate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Thiamine Mononitrate, Folic Acid, Phylloquinone, Biotin, Vitamin D3, Vitamin B12), Taurine, Nucleotides (Cytidine 5’-Monophosphate, Disodium Uridine 5’-Monophosphate, Adenosine 5’-Monophosphate, Disodium Guanosine 5’-Monophosphate), L-Carnitine.

[Baby Food, Child Nutrition, Tips and Advice | Gerber

11

Well the link in my above post doesn’t work, but you can find it on the can at the store or if you go to

and search for nutrition info.

12

So did my littlest brother. I and my two older brothers were breastfed, but my littlest brother had a serious crisis and was comatose so long that my mother could not continue lactating for him. So when he came home from the hospital, he was fed formula. And he turned out so fantastically better than expected (frankly, he was expected to be a vegetable, but next week he’ll be graduating from high school and next fall he’ll be going to a university with an eye to an engineering degree) that I cannot imagine there are any serious risks associated with formula-feeding apart from a slightly elevated risk of infection during those first few months when the child’s immune system is immature and reliant on maternal antibodies.

Breastmilk is the best, but if the child cannot be provided with human milk, I think there’s nothing at all wrong with formula. Certainly formula is superior to letting the kid starve.

Incidentally, there is donor breast milk available now. Human women donate excess milk for needy mothers. But because of the small supply (far smaller than the donor blood supply), this milk is extremely expensive and is available only by prescription to babies for whom there is absolutely no alternative – i.e. their mothers cannot feed them and they cannot drink formula.

13

I’ve already stated that breastfeeding is best and that mothers should do so if they can. I’m not an enemy of breastfeeding.

But I dislike the notion that disaster awaits babies who are not breastfed.

The simplest way to refute that is to point out the simple truth that most babies are not breastfed even for six months, let alone until weaning.

Here’s a public health site with national breastfeeding rates.

There is no national health crisis that can be identified from lack of breastfeeding. It should be here already because the chart clearly shows that breastfeeding is on an upswing. If the data given went back farther it would show that the rate was much lower earlier than 1990.

I don’t use the word thrive loosely. Babies who are not breastfed can and do thrive.

The studies that look at the situation are equivocal at best when looked at objectively and not picked over for statements that make a case for one side or the other. An editorial in the journal Clinical and Experimental Allergy (1993; 23:79-80) said:

Unfortunately, CorvusMellori, your arguments are themselves loose. The first two and three of the first four ingredients in your formula listing are milk products. Vegetable oil is certainly nutritious - it provides the fat that babies need.

And your notions about evolution and design are equally faulty. Humans, as all animals, need a set of nutrients, vitamins and minerals. Milk has certainly been selected to contain optimal values of this set, but the body does not distinguish sources once the set has been broken down and digested. (Corn is perfectly digestible and full of nutrients as well.)

I agree it would be wonderful if all mothers breastfed their babies for at least a year. But only a tiny minority do. Fortunately, humans are adaptable and alternatives in western countries are excellent and plentiful. There are enough reasons for mothers to feel guilt when raising a child not to add to them unnecessarily.

14

What exactly is “hardly nutritious” about the above? Looks like proteins, fats and lipids, carbohydrates, essential minerals, vitamins, amino acids, and DNA/RNA building blocks (nucleotides). Those are all extremely nutritious.

-mok

15

Some argue that formula can actually be superior to mother’s milk in some cases. For one thing, the one vitamin notably lacking in breast milk is vitamin D. Formula generally is fortified with it. Some pediatricians are starting to recommend that breastfed babies also receive a vitamin D supplement, because they’d prefer that to risking sunburn from the old-fashioned method of getting it.

Another case is when the mother is using various chemicals, for whatever reason, which may be expressed in her milk. A glass of alcohol will be completely metabolized and not expressed in milk in significant quantities, but if the mother drinks much more than that, she can make her baby drunk and potentially cause the baby serious developmental problems. Nicotine can also get into the milk, as can many illegal drugs. And even prescription drugs can be a problem. Yet if the mother MUST take the drugs for health reasons, then formula would be much better than her own milk.

In the end, babies can do just fine raised on either breastmilk or formula. The important thing is for the family to decide what is best for them and their baby, because everybody’s situation is unique.

16

Getting a little closer to the OP, it’s interesting to note that tolerance of milk after early childhood is mostly limited to certain ethnic groups, especially Europeans. Many, many people from Asia cannot digest milk after infancy because their system ceases to make the necessary enzymes to digest lactose.

To put it in evolutionary terms, as Corvus did, for most hunter-gatherer humans it would be a waste of the body’s resources to continue to produce the necessary enzymes, since they would never be used. Most likely when some groups began raising cattle, it then became advantageous to be able to digest milk, since it provided a ready source of nutrients, so those who could do so were more successful.

17

Hope you don’t mind. At least this might save you some work when somebody cries “cite!” :wink:

According to John Reader’s Africa: A Biography of the Continent (a wonderful book found by my wife) he states:

"From their (researchers at Lagos and Stanford universities) detailed surveys of cattle herding (Fulani) and agriculturist (Yoruba and Igbo) communities in Nigeria the researchers published results showing that both lactose tolerance and intolerance were inherited. But the gene for tolerance was dominant, they found…

The implication of a dominant gene for lactose tolerance is that once the mutation had arisen, the number of people in a group sharing its benefits would increase… until all were lactose tolerant…

The evolution of lactose tolerance can only have begun with the domestication of livestock around 10,000 years ago."

Section in italics added by JohnT to clear up the pronoun.

18

Well, thank you!

19

It saddens me to see all this misinformation about breastfeeding and formula. Formula doesn’t even come close to replicating breastmilk.

Actually, a child’s immune system is not fully mature until between the ages of 2 and 6. “…it takes between two and six years for a child’s immune system to fully mature. Human milk continues to complement and boost the immune system for as long as it is offered.” [http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/LVAprMay98p21NB.html] Also, you don’t know what kind of health problems a formula-fed child will face later in life which could have been prevented by breastfeeding.

I never said that starving is superior to formula. Yes, formula is superior to starving. But that’s about all it does… prevent starvation.

I know this.

Actually, formula is never superior to mother’s milk. Never. You are referring to the vitamin D issue which has been in the news lately. Vitamin D does not appear in large quantities in breastmilk. That’s ok. We best absorb vitamin D through sun exposure. (Safe sun exposure.) 30 minutes of safe sun exposure per week is enough to give a baby all the vitamin D s/he needs. That means when the sun is not at its peak, etc. We don’t tend to go out in the sun as much as we used to; that’s why this has come up. I know that some pediatricians have begun pushing vitamin D supplements on unsusecting parents. However, I also know that (most) individual pediatricians know very little about breastfeeding; they actually receive more education on formula in medical school (which really needs to be changed). IBCLCs (lactation consultants) and La Leche League International know far more about breastfeeding than most pediatricians, so I have taken my breastfeeding education from them. La Leche League International, the world’s foremost authority on breasfeeding, has recently issued a press release about vitamin D supplementation. It begins with, “Exclusively breastfed healthy, full-term infants from birth to six months who have adequate exposure to sunlight are not at risk for developing vitamin D deficiency or rickets. Rickets occurs because of a deficiency in sunlight exposure, not because of a deficiency in human milk.” You can read the entire press release at http://www.lalecheleague.org/Release/vitamind.html.

Actually, 1 glass of wine is usually not a problem. Breastmilk is made directly from the mother’s blood. Once the alcohol is gone from the mother’s blood, it is also gone from the milk. So it’s not always necessary to pump-and-dump. A mother can feed her baby, have a glass of wine, and feed the baby again in a couple hours. And if a mother (or father) is drinking more than the occasional drink of alcohol, well, sorry but that’s a a whole other problem in and of itself. Same thing with nicotine… you shouldn’t be smoking around your children whether you breastfeed or formula-feed. You also shouldn’t be using illegal drugs whether you breastfeed or formula-feed. Regarding prescription medication: It’s actually a myth that a women has to stop breastfeeding in order to take some meds. Most doctors will say to stop, due to their fear of liability. However, there’s a very long list of meds that are safe to take while breastfeeding. Dr Thomas Hale, a noted pharmacologist, has written a book which lists safe medications. It’s called " Medications and Mothers’ Milk." See [http://neonatal.ttuhsc.edu/lact/html/drhale_bio.html] for more details on this.

Yes, but I don’t want my child to just do “fine.” I want her to THRIVE and have the healthiest, absolute best start to her life.

People who think that formula is equivalent, or even close to, breastmilk have been fooled. My “arguments” are not “loose,” as Exapno Mapcase wrote. I have written only facts gleaned from various breastfeeding authorities. Like I said earlier, do not try to argue that formula is as good as breastmilk… you will lose the argument. Science is on my side.

Back to the original post: the fact is, milk is not designed for adult consumption. It is designed to nourish infants.

20

…which I meant to add in my previous post.

  1. Breastmilk changes its composition as a baby’s needs change. For example, when a mother gets a cold, her breastmilk passes immunities to this cold to the baby. The baby might get sick, but not nearly as bad as s/he would without the breastmilk. “The composition of human milk changes to meet the changing needs of baby as he matures. Even when baby is able to take solids, human milk is the primary source of nutrition during the first year. It becomes a supplement to solids during the second year.” [http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/LVAprMay98p21NB.html] Formula does not have the ability to change as the baby changes; nor does it have the ability to pass on immunities.

  2. It’s very sad that North American culture (and many other, but not all, western societies) overestimate the power of formula and severely underestimate the power of breastmilk.