Milk in the News--Read All About It!

Milk is not generally thought of as an exciting or controversial newsworthy topic.  But it's been prominent in the news of late. "Ditching Dairy" was the title of a recent Chicago Tribune article, and the statistics quoted there confirmed that people are, in fact, consuming less milk.  Next, milk is now the subject of a heated debate--should a manufacturer be able to add an artificial sweetener to its milk and not put a conspicuous label telling customers about this additive?  Finally, an online article has claimed that, contrary to popular belief, milk is actually bad for the bones.  True or false?  Fix yourself a latte or a milk shake and read more about these milky matters.

Less dairy in our diets?  Why?

Consumption of milk is at its lowest level in 36 years, according to Department of Agriculture statistics.  Moreover, consumption of all dairy products has been steadily decreasing since 2005.  Why?  Well, we have a lot of other choices--"milk" made from rice, almond, soy and so on. Folks with an allergy to milk, lactose intolerance, or other digestive problems in response to milk commonly switch to other similar products. 

But what about adults who have or are close to developing osteoporosis?  They're commonly advised to consume a lot of calcium.  If they don't like or can't tolerate dairy, the solution was to take calcium pills, right?  But many folks were scared away from that solution after a German study which, last summer, reported that people who got all or most of their calcium from supplements were almost twice as likely to suffer heart attacks as those not doing that.  But here's what the Tufts University Health and Nutrition Letter announced in its March 2013 issue:  "New research using CT scans of participants' hearts finds no association between even the highest calcium intake from food plus supplements and coronary artery calcification--presumably the possible culprit in heart-attack risk." 

Still, the publication recommends that, as much as possible, people should satisfy their needs for calcium with food rather than supplements.  For those who are lactose intolerant, there are special types of milk (such as Lactaid) and pills that can offset the ill effects of the indigestible sugar.

Many have pointed out the following about drinking milk:

• "We are the only species that has chosen to consume the milk of another species. It was never formulated for us, and we have a lot of problems with it."  (nutritionist Joseph Keon, quoted in the Chicago Tribune)
• In other animal species, mothers' milk is consumed only by young offspring. "Only humans continue drinking mammary secretions after infancy," says the website alterNet.com.
• In many parts of the world, adults do not drink milk.  It is common in Western cultures but not in the East.  (See "Why do adults in Western cultures drink milk?")

How much calcium should adults strive to consume?  That depends upon one's age and gender.  Here's what's recommended:

for ages 19-50: 1,000 mg.

for ages 51-70: 1,000 mg. for men; 1,200  for women

for ages 71 and up: 1,200 mg.

Adults can get enough calcium without consuming dairy products by eating some of these (and other) calcium-rich foods: a soy beverage, sardines, fortified ready-to-eat cereal, pink salmon, spinach and other dark leafy greens, ocean perch,  brazil nuts, herring, soy beans, and white beans. (See "Top 10 Foods Highest in Calcium.") However, milk is one of the most healthful beverages you can drink since, in addition to calcium, it contains vitamins A, B, and D plus proteins, riboflavin, niacin, and phosphorus. 

Should additives in milk be announced on the front of the container?

This news story actually began four years ago, but it's coming to a head quite soon.  In March, 2009, the dairy industry (specifically, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation) jointly submitted a petition to the FDA. They want to add an artificial sweetener to milk and a few other dairy products but (here's the kicker) without having to label the product "reduced calorie," "reduced sugar," or "artificially sweetened." The specific additive (probably aspartame) would still be listed on the package under "ingredients." 

Food scientist Dr. Karin Allen explains the reason for the petition: "In the Code of Federal Regulations, the Standards of Identity for milk products lists ingredients that can be added to milk, for example, flavorings and additional sugar in chocolate milk.  But the standards do not say that any artificial sweeteners can be added.  That is that basis for the petition; that's what the dairy industry needs in order to add aspartame."  Without that approval, a carton of flavored milk with artificial sweetener added could not be sold as milk.

Why would the dairy industry want to sweeten milk in the first place?  They want milk to be able to compete with other low-cal beverages. The industry claims that children having lunch at school would drink more milk (especially the flavored varieties) if it was sweetened.  So what's wrong with sugar?  It doesn't promote the fight against childhood obesity.  So what's wrong with a label that says "reduced sugar" or something similar?  The dairy industry believes that sort of label would make the product unappealing to children and discourage them from drinking this healthful beverage.

The FDA has finally (on February 20, 2013) responded to this petition and issued a 90-day notice requesting comments.  The comment period lasts until May 21.  The announcement of the hearings brought the matter to public attention, and advocacy groups opposed to artificial sweeteners and fearful of possible harmful side effects from aspartame have been campaigning against the additive.  The debate is covered in a Snopes commentary, which posts letters from those who consider aspartame poison and then a 2010 response from David Hattan, who identified himself as the Acting Director of the Division of Health Effects Evaluation in the FDA. He says that aspartame is "among the most thoroughly tested of food additives" and that the scientific information he presented in his response confirms the safety of aspartame. 

And so, we await the FDA's decision. It could be argued that products containing artificial sweeteners need a conspicuous label that alerts consumers to that.  Some people may have a bad reaction to some sweeteners; others don't like the taste of artificial sweeteners.  Consumers are not in the habit of reading the small-print ingredient notes on milk because they assume that milk is just milk. However, one of the members of this site's Advisory Board, Dr. Timothy Bowser, says the following: "I'm fine with the labeling proposal.  I think the FDA will approve the proposed changes because they are logical for the industry, and the dairy industry will apply pressure."

There's another point that should be made here, and food scientist Dr. Catherine Cutter makes it well.  "Why are we sweetening everything? It seems as if there is a double edged sword (if you will) when it comes to sweeteners.  Some Americans like sweet foods, so the food industry makes foods sweeter to appeal to the American palate.  Does this lead to eating more sweet foods, for example, sweetened cereals?  Why sweeten milk?  In my opinion, it has enough sugar from lactose.   Sweetening of so many food products could make people crave that sweetness.  I have to wonder--could all of this sweetening lead to issues associated with child obesity?" 

Dr. Cutter also commented on the public pressure to put conspicuous labels on products.  Now there is a push to label milk "gluten-free."  Why?  Ordinarily, there wouldn't be any gluten in milk, but if something is added (for flavoring or thickening), there could be.  But, to people who have concerns about additives, Cutter says, "Read the list of ingredients printed on the label. That's huge!" 

Although the Center for Science in the Public Interest (a well-known consumer advocacy group) has questioned the safety of some artificial sweeteners (aspartame, acesulfame-potassium, and saccharin) in the past, CSPI has now concluded, “...the certain harm caused by the 15 teaspoons of sugar in a 20 oz. drink outweighs the speculative harm from artificial sweeteners.” 

Does milk steal calcium from the bones?

Floating around the internet is an article with the following title:

 "Debunking The Milk Myth: Why Milk is Bad for You and Your Bones."

This article claims that milk acidifies the body's pH. Then, calcium is pulled from the bones to neutralize the acidifying effect of the milk.  Much to my relief (since I consume a lot of dairy and don't want a lot of broken bones), two scientists I asked about this did not agree with the article's discussion of the effect of milk on the bones:

Dr. Bowser:  "Milk does not reach your bones as "milk" but as digested products of milk, which have a pH of their own that is due to digestion.  I don't believe that normal quantities of most foods would significantly alter the pH of the digestive tract." 

Dr. Hicks: "All nutritionists know that milk is an excellent source of calcium.  Even though milk contains phosphates, the calcium in milk is absorbed more easily than it is from most other foods that contain calcium.  Although some of the calcium is in an insoluble calcium-phosphate complex, milk is still the best deliverer of calcium to humans. It is not like drinking a cola, which contains phosphates and ties up soluble calcium from the blood.

Why are raw milk and raw milk cheeses risky?

The risks of consuming products made with raw milk is a subject this site has mentioned several times.  Here are two of the Shelf Life Advice articles on the subject:

"FAQs about Soft Cheeses--What's Safe, What Isn't"

"Must milk be pasteurized to be safe?  Is raw milk unsafe?"

Here is Dr. Bowser's comment on raw milk: "Experience tells us that raw milk products can be dangerous.  Commercial dairies won't sell raw milk because of shelf life and liability issues.  They can not afford the problems associated with raw milk."

Food Safety Tech points out the following: "Indiana, a top state for dairy processing, and Wisconsin, the top dairy state, are leaders among 20 states that currently prohibit raw milk sale for human consumption." 

Where can I learn more about milk on Shelf Life Advice?

Go to "Milk," which will give you links to Q/As in these four sections: 

milk substitutes, soy, rice, and almond drinks

milk, lactose-free, milk

milk, special types

milk, whole, reduced fat, fat-free

Source(s):

Karin E. Allen, Ph.D., Utah State University, Dept. of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Food Sciences

Timothy J. Bowser, Ph.D., Oklahoma State University, Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering

Catherine N. Cutter, Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University, Dept. of Food Science

Clair L. Hicks, Ph.D., University of Kentucky, Dept. of Animal and Food Sciences

Chicago Tribune, "Health: Ditching diary" February 24, 2013.

Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter, "No Need to Worry About Calcium and Your Heart" March 2013.

huffingtonpost.com  "Aspartame In Milk Petition Spaprks Thousands of Angry Comments to FDA, Counter-Signatures"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/aspartame-milk_n_2828359.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share

snopes.com  "Artificial Sweeteners in Milk"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/aspartamemilk.asp

snopes.com  "Aspartame"

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

foodsafetytech.com  "Indiana Says No to Raw Milk"

http://www.foodsafetytech.com/FoodSafetyTech/News/Indiana-Says-No-to-Raw-Milk--1231.aspx

Center for Science in the Public Interest "Petition to Ensure the Safe Use of 'Added Sugars'"

CSPI sugar_ petition_2_12_13_final.pdf