Seeking Health

Recent undercover footage from Farmwatch and SAFE has highlighted the cruel practices inherent in the dairy industry as well as out-right abuse of bobby calves. While most are rightly appalled at the video footage showing calves being thrown, dragged and kicked, some see other widespread industry practices such as removing calves from their mothers to be killed or raised for veal as a “necessary evil” in order to produce a product necessary for human consumption and our economy. But is this the truth?

Many New Zealanders, including some vegetarians, still consume substantial amounts of dairy products—and government policies still promote them—despite scientific evidence that questions their health benefits and indicates their potential health risks. Following is information from the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine on dairy.

Bone Health

Calcium is an important mineral that helps to keep bones strong. Our bones are constantly remodelling, meaning the body takes small amounts of calcium from the bones and replaces it with new calcium. Therefore, it is essential to have enough calcium so that the body doesn’t decrease bone density in this remodelling process. Though calcium is necessary for ensuring bone health, the actual benefits of calcium intake do not exist after consumption passes a certain threshold. Consuming more than approximately 600 milligrams per day—easily achieved without dairy products or calcium supplements—does not improve bone integrity.

Clinical research shows that dairy products have little or no benefit for bones. A 2005 review published in Paediatrics showed that milk consumption does not improve bone integrity in children. In a more recent study, researchers tracked the diets, physical activity, and stress fracture incidences of adolescent girls for seven years, and concluded that dairy products and calcium do not prevent stress fractures in adolescent girls. Similarly, the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study, which followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years, showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk.

It is possible to decrease the risk of osteoporosis by reducing sodium intake in the diet, increasing intake of fruits and vegetables, and ensuring adequate calcium intake from plant foods such as kale, broccoli, and other leafy green vegetables and beans. You can also use calcium-fortified products such as breakfast cereals and juices. Soy milk and fortified orange juice are two examples of products which provide about the same amount of calcium per serving as milk or other dairy products.

Exercise is one of the most effective ways to increase bone density and decrease the risk of osteoporosis, and its benefits have been observed in studies of both children and adults.

Individuals often drink milk in order to obtain vitamin D in their diets, unaware that they can receive vitamin D through other sources. Without vitamin D, only 10-15 percent of dietary calcium is absorbed.

The best natural source of vitamin D is sunlight. Five to 15 minutes of sun exposure to the arms and legs or the hands, face, and arms can be enough to meet the body’s requirements for vitamin D, depending on the individual’s skin tone. Darker skin requires longer exposure to the sun in order to obtain adequate levels of vitamin D. In colder climates during the winter months the sun may not be able to provide adequate vitamin D. During this time the diet must be able to provide vitamin D.

Few foods naturally contain vitamin D, and no dairy products naturally contain this vitamin. Therefore, fortified cereals, grains, bread, orange juice, and soy or rice milk exist as options for providing vitamin D through the diet. Supplements are also available.

Fat Content and Cardiovascular Disease

Dairy products—including cheese, ice cream, milk, butter, and yogurt—contribute significant amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat to the diet. Diets high in fat and especially in saturated fat can increase the risk of heart disease and can cause other serious health problems.

A low-fat, plant-based diet that eliminates dairy products, in combination with exercise, smoking cessation, and stress management, can not only prevent heart disease, but may also reverse it.

Dairy and Cancer

Consumption of dairy products has also been linked to higher risk for various cancers, especially to cancers of the reproductive system. Most significantly, dairy product consumption has been linked to increased risk for prostate and breast cancers.

The danger of dairy product consumption as it relates to prostate and breast cancers is most likely related to increases in insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which is found in cow’s milk.Consumption of milk and dairy products on a regular basis has been shown to increase circulating levels of IGF-1. Perhaps the most convincing association between IGF-1 levels and cancer risk is seen in studies of prostate cancer. Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-1 concentrations and prostate cancer risk. One study showed that men with the highest levels of IGF-1 had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer, compared with those who had the lowest levels. In the Physicians Health Study, tracking 21,660 participants for 28 years, researchers found an increased risk of prostate cancer for those who consumed ≥2.5 servings of dairy products per day as compared with those who consumed ≤0.5 servings a day. This study, which is supported by other findings, also shows that prostate cancer risk was elevated with increased consumption of low-fat milk, suggesting that too much dairy calcium, and not just the fat associated with dairy products, could be a potential threat to prostate health.

In addition to increased levels of IGF-1, oestrogen metabolites are considered risk factors for cancers of the reproductive system, including cancers of the breasts, ovaries, and prostate. These metabolites can affect cellular proliferation such that cells grow rapidly and aberrantly, which can lead to cancer growth. Consumption of milk and dairy products contributes to the majority (60-70 percent) of oestrogen intake in the human diet.

In a large study including 1,893 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology Study who had been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, higher amounts of high-fat dairy product consumption were associated with higher mortality rates. As little as 0.5 servings a day increased risk significantly. This is probably due to the fact that estrogenic hormones reside primarily in fat, making the concern most pronounced for consumption of high-fat dairy products.

The consumption of dairy products may also contribute to development of ovarian cancer. The relation between dairy products and ovarian cancer may be caused by the breakdown of the milk sugar lactose into galactose, a sugar which may be toxic to ovarian cells. In a study conducted in Sweden, consumption of lactose and dairy products was positively linked to ovarian cancer. A similar study, the Iowa Women’s Health Study, found that women who consumed more than one glass of milk per day had a 73 percent greater chance of developing ovarian cancer than women who drank less than one glass per day.

Milk Proteins and Diabetes

Insulin-dependent (type 1 or childhood-onset) diabetes is linked to consumption of dairy products in infancy. A 2001 Finnish study of 3,000 infants with genetically increased risk for developing diabetes showed that early introduction of cow’s milk increased susceptibility to type 1 diabetes. In addition, the American Academy of Paediatrics observed up to a 30 percent reduction in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in infants who avoid exposure to cow’s milk protein for at least the first three months of their lives.

Health Concerns about Milk for Children and Infants

Milk proteins, milk sugar, fat, and saturated fat in dairy products pose health risks for children and encourage the development of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. While low-fat milk is often recommended for decreasing obesity risk, a study published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood showed that children who drank 1 percent or skim milk, compared with those who drank full-fat milk, were not any less likely to be obese. Moreover, a current meta-analysis found no support for the argument that increasing dairy product intake will decrease body fat and weight over the long term (>1 year).

For infants, the consumption of cow’s milk is not recommended. The American Academy of Paediatrics recommends that infants below 1 year of age not be given whole cow’s milk, as iron deficiency is more likely due to the low amount of iron found in cow’s milk as compared with human breast milk. Colic is an additional concern with milk consumption. Up to 28 percent of infants suffer from colic during the first month of life. Paediatricians learned long ago that cow’s milk was often the reason. We now know that breastfeeding mothers can have colicky babies if the mothers consume cow’s milk. The cow’s antibodies can pass through the mother’s bloodstream, into her breast milk, and to the baby.

Additionally, food allergies appear to be common results of cow’s milk consumption, particularly in children. Cow’s milk consumption has also been linked to chronic constipation in children.

Conclusions

Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and can, in fact, be harmful to health. It is best to consume a healthful diet of grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and fortified foods including cereals and juices. These nutrient-dense foods can help you meet your calcium, potassium, riboflavin, and vitamin D requirements with ease—and without facing the health risks associated with dairy product consumption.

But what about our economy? Won’t the downfall of the dairy industry mean the downfall of the NZ economy?

No. Recent research done by Massey University found that the environmental costs to society of dairy farming are approximately equal to the export revenue and gross domestic product (GDP). In other words, the industry is a zero-sum gain for New Zealand.

So what is the environmental impact of dairy farming in NZ?

It is difficult to separate the environmental impact of dairy farming from animal agriculture in general because the dairy industry and the meat industry are one and the same. New Zealand’s agricultural sector is responsible for almost half of all our domestic greenhouse gas emissions (49 per cent), with the dairy sector by far the biggest contributor. One third of all agriculture’s emissions are from nitrous oxide gas (from livestock urine, manure and artificial fertilizer use) and two-thirds come from methane, emitted when cows burp. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas; 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. But nitrous oxide is even more potent; 300 times more climate-damaging than CO2.

It was unbelievable that at the Climate Change march on Sunday, even though it accounts for nearly half our GHG emissions, not one of the speeches mentioned animal agriculture. Instead protestors walked down the street carrying banners about carbon emissions while eating ice creams.

Then we come to land and water use and pollution. The single biggest consumer of water in New Zealand is the dairy industry. As of 2010, farmers are permitted to take about 4707 million m3 of water per year from New Zealand’s rivers and aquifers to irrigate pasture, most of which is for dairying. This is 44% of all consumptive uses, and 68% of this water is allocated in Canterbury alone. It takes about 945 L of water to produce 1 L of milk in the Waikato. For Canterbury, it’s 1084 L of water.

When I was growing up, my Dad used to take us camping and tramping. Whenever we’d come to a stream or river, we’d fill up our water bottles and Dad would always tell us that it was the best and freshest water in the world.

Over the years as I’ve taken my children camping and tramping, we’re increasingly finding, not only lower river levels, but signs telling us “No Swimming” due to pollution. The thought of drinking the stuff is out of the question. This pollution isn’t coming from factories or chemical processing plants. It’s coming from dairy farms.

On any given acre of land we can grow twelve to twenty times the amount in kilograms of edible vegetables, fruit, and grain as in kilograms of edible animal products. We are essentially using twenty times the amount of land by consuming meat and dairy.

This also translates to 20 times the amount of crops as well. It’s been estimated that the amount of grain produced world-wide each year is enough to feed twice as many people as we currently have on earth. But 43% of all grain produced goes to livestock. Over 90% of the world’s soy bean harvest is used for animal feed. The extra billion tons of cereals experts are concerned about producing by 2030 to feed the rising population can be found today – we’re feeding it to livestock.

Since human settlement in Canterbury, widespread burning of native vegetation has occurred. Over the last 150 years, the introduction of modern farming methods has dramatically changed the natural habitats of the Canterbury Plains. Sadly, it is now one of the most depleted New Zealand regions, in terms of loss of native flora and fauna. Less than 0.5% of the plains still supports native vegetation.

The loss of these native plant communities has reached a point where habitats for our native wildlife have been reduced to a level where they are now insufficient for continued survival. Many of these native remnants exist now only as non-regenerating ageing populations that will be lost when the current plants die. The Canterbury Plains used to be covered in wetlands and podocarp forests. Now the only place you can see Kahikatea native forest is in a fenced off area called Riccarton Bush or Deans Bush – kind of like a tree museum. They haven’t started charging us a dollar and a half to see it yet, but there is a donation box. When you drive along state highway number one, through the Canterbury Plains, there is grazing land as far as the eye can see, not one Kahikatea tree in sight.

NZ cows are increasingly being fed genetically modified palm kernel, soy and cottonseed meal from Southeast Asia, Argentina and Indonesia, a practice that contributes to the destruction of rainforest and the habitat of species, such as the orang-utan. There is nothing illegal in this. It is perfectly legal to import and feed GM food to animals, just not directly to humans.

So, as you can see, the problem is far bigger than the abuse of bobby calves. This is just the tip of a very large ice berg. These calves are being killed and hurt for us to have a product that we don’t need and is actually making us sick, while destroying our planet at the same time. And we’re not even making any money out of it. If you haven’t ditched the dairy yet, yesterday was the best time to do it. Today is the next best time.