Milk from sick cows

There is something called the somatic cell count (SCC) that is used to reflect the amount of pus in milk. More accurately, it is an indicator of mammary gland health and an elevated count indicates an infection.

"Milk SCC is a long-established barometer of milk quality. An elevated SCC is an indicator of udder infection (mastitits)." Journal of Dairy Science 2000;83(12):2782-2788.

A 2005 study published through the British Veterinary Association indicates that a SCC less than 100,000 cells/mL is considered to be healthy. SCC greater than 200,000 cells/mL indicates a bacterial infection.

In the United States, the legal limit is 750,000 cells/mL
In Canada, the legal limit is 500,000 cells/mL
In Europe, Australia and New Zealand, the legal limit is 400,000 cells/mL

The United States not only has the lowest standards, but the standards contradict expert opinion on an acceptable amount of pus in our milk! Defenders of the US policy will state that although the upper limit is 750,000, most dairy herds come in around 270,000 cells/mL. Let me point out that that is still a sick cow.

Pastuerization, thankfully, destroys most of the cells. But imagine this; you pull out a steak from the refrigerator that you've been meaning to grill. You smell it and it gives off a revolting smell. You barely contain your vomit due to the stench.

Will you just cook it a little longer? Or will you refuse to eat it? Most of us would probably throw it out. Yet, we drink dirty milk because it's been pasteurized.

Milk & Hormones

We've determined that the presence of growth hormone itself in milk may not be a major concern. Rather, the IGF-1 that results is more likely the cause of chronic health issues related to milk. Does this mean that there are no hormone-related issues with milk? Not necessarily.

Let's look at the conclusions of several research studies.

1. "Among the routes of human exposure to estrogens, we are particularly concerned about cows' milk, which contains considerable amounts of estrogens....milk and dairy products, which account for 60-70% of the estrogens consumed." Med Hypothesis 2001 Oct;57(4):510-4.

Some authors argue that the amount of sex hormones present is so small that it is not likely to have an effect. But remember that a little may not hurt an adult, but that same amount may injure a child.

2. "Exogenous contributions of estrogens will therefore constitute a relatively higher proportion of sex hormone activity in the immature child." Analytica Chim Acta 2007 Mar 14;586(1-2):105-14.

Many researchers agree that there is increased risk to young children due to these small amounts of sex hormones.

3. "Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk." Pediatr Int 2009 May 22
______________________________________

Many chemicals, including various hormones and cellular signals, produced in our bodies appear in breast milk. The same is true for cows. They produce milk containing many chemicals including sex hormones. So the question of organic versus non-organic milk becomes a moot point with respect to sex hormone levels. Even so, let's see what research has shown.

4. "Conventionally labeled milk had significantly less estradiol and progesterone than organic milk. ... Milk labeled rBST-free had similar concentrations of progesterone vs. conventional milk and similar concentrations of estradiol vs. organic milk..... Conventional, rBST free, and organic milk are compositionally similar." J Am Diet Assoc 2008 Jul;108(7):1198-203

This is not to say that organic milk and conventional milk are the same. It means that the sex hormone content is roughly the same.

Is exogenous intake of hormone good for you? Most of us have the visceral instinct that this is not good. Let's remember that even organic dairy is full of these hormones. It is pesticides that they are missing (which is a good thing). But removing one evil doesn't automatically remove all of them.

Milk and rBST

Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) (aka cow growth hormone), is routinely used to increase milk production in cows. This hormone is banned in Canada, European Union, Australia and New Zealand but the United States continues to allow it.

The National Institutes of Health states that rBST is not present in significant amounts in milk as it is destroyed during the pastuerization process. However, rBST causes an increases in levels if IGF-1. IGF-1 is present in cow's milk and survives the pasteurization process.

The obvious question is, "So what? Is consumption of extra amounts of IGF-1 in cow's milk harmful to humans?"

This journal article makes some important points about IGF-1.

1. Milk protein consumption induces postprandial hyperinsulinaemia and shifts the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) axis to permanently increased IGF-1 serum levels.

2. Insulin/IGF-1 signalling is involved in the regulation of fetal growth, T-cell maturation in the thymus, linear growth, pathogenesis of acne, atherosclerosis, diabetes mellitus, obesity, cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, thus affecting most chronic diseases of Western societies.

3. Of special concern is the possibility that milk intake during pregnancy adversely affects the early fetal programming of the IGF-1 axis which will influence health risks later in life.

Clearly, disruption of the IGF-1 axis has significant implications.

Folks, many people will tell you that even if we give rBST to cows, it is not a big deal because it doesn't make its way into milk. But that approach is incredibly short sighted. rBST does something to cows... that something is an increase in IGF-1. IGF-1 enters our body and according to some authorities, has a significant role in most chronic diseases.

Milk has the potential for damages. So is organic milk better for you? We'll address that in the next entry.