Detox for kids

Kila

Jedi
Does anyone have any particular recommendations for feeding children?

I'm not sure the Detox diet is really the way to go with a 3 year old, 6 year old and 11 year old. Maybe the 11 year old I dunno.

As it is, their diet is organic. They eat meat, either farmers market or grass fed, raw milk (this is very limited since it's a little like buying drugs in a dark alley here in Texas, so about a gallon a week) eggs, organic butter, olive oil, grapeseed oil, sesame seed oil, coconut oil, palm oil and bacon drippings or duck fat. Fresh fruit and vegetables. They eat a lot of apples and oranges and berries are favorites. Nuts and dried fruits in small quantities. And bread..

We don't really eat legumes. Beans are famine food around here and my kids won't eat them. I personally hate them. Brown rice is good though.
They hate eggs.. so I've given up on eggs. Maybe they are allergic. The 3 year old won't eat salad or greens. The six year old loves salad but won't eat cooked greens. The 11 year old eats everything.
Oh, we also eat organ meats (from healthy animals) fish eggs and urchin roe. We eat these for the high content of fat soluble vitamins like A,D and K. It's a double edged sword I am aware due to the potential toxicity. But that is true about so many things.

They have been well indoctrinated regarding 'poison" foods and I'm sure my 11 year old could probably write a 5 paragraph essay on the Excitotoxin family.

Anyway, it's hard though, because their friends don't eat what we eat. And some of her friends are vegetarian so they pretty much live on soy and pasta. And what do I feed them when they are over here?? So what do you do? They go to a slumber party or out with friends to pizza? I know evil lurks everywhere but geez I just get soooo tired of constantly monitoring and demonizing everything. And I wonder how healthy that is for them emotionally.
At the same time I want them to understand and have the knowledge that will protect them.

Also, does anyone have any suggestions for packed lunches?
Usually, I have put in a sandwich of some kind, lara bar(dried fruit and nuts) and a piece of fruit. Anyone have any ideas for lunch items that aren't sandwiches that kids might like. I have made wraps out of collard green leaves and I really like those but the kids are little less enthused.

Also what about holidays and sugar???

I absolutely limit sugar. They never get sodas. My oldest didn't have a coke until a few years ago at someone's house. But what do you do say around Halloween? What I have done in the past is let them trick or treat and then they can trade in that candy for some really good(and expensive) organic chocolate something.
Xmas there is also more candy but only for that day. Easter ...yes ...more candy again I splurge and buy the best chocolate and marzipan I can find. What about birthdays and cakes???? I will try Laura's best cake recipe.

What sucks for me is I really don't like baking at all. Cooking.... well sometimes I like it if I have plenty of time on my hands. I could easily live on about 10 foods and never mind it at all. But my kids...

I had the conversation last night with the husband about wheat since his favorite meal to make for them in a pinch is spaghetti. The problem is I am only home to cook two night a week. Any ideas around something sort of equivalent that could be the very quick just got home from dance and it's already 7 pm sort of dinner that kids would like?

I'm also trying to really move toward a more alkalizing diet or at least more balance. But after a while it seems like I've cut out so many things that there isn't much left.
 
Kila said:
Does anyone have any particular recommendations for feeding children?

I'm not sure the Detox diet is really the way to go with a 3 year old, 6 year old and 11 year old. Maybe the 11 year old I dunno.

A full detox diet might be a lot to ask for a child. It might be better just to try to incorporate as many detox foods and recipes as possible and do the best you can for the rest. I think if you can eliminate dairy and gluten and minimize their intake of sugar and any artificial ingredients that's doing a lot for the kids! But then again, it depends on their specific health needs, if they have specific allergies or other health concerns.

Kila said:
We don't really eat legumes. Beans are famine food around here and my kids won't eat them. I personally hate them. Brown rice is good though.
They hate eggs.. so I've given up on eggs. Maybe they are allergic. The 3 year old won't eat salad or greens. The six year old loves salad but won't eat cooked greens. The 11 year old eats everything.

I have a similar problem in my household. My oldest will eat just about anything, but the youngest has a really hard time eating anything with meat. I noticed that if I mix it in with other foods that she likes, she will eventually just eat the meat. Like making spaghetti and adding ground beef to the sauce.

I don't think it's a smart idea to force kids to eat certain food. But I also don't think it's a good idea to make "special meals" based around the kid's likes and dislikes. What I put on the dinner table is what is available for that night. The foods they don't like they usually eat a little, but not a lot. Then on nights when I make something they like, they eat a lot. I get moans and groans about the stuff they don't like, but in the end we all eat the same food.

Kila said:
They have been well indoctrinated regarding 'poison" foods and I'm sure my 11 year old could probably write a 5 paragraph essay on the Excitotoxin family.

Anyway, it's hard though, because their friends don't eat what we eat. And some of her friends are vegetarian so they pretty much live on soy and pasta. And what do I feed them when they are over here?? So what do you do? They go to a slumber party or out with friends to pizza? I know evil lurks everywhere but geez I just get soooo tired of constantly monitoring and demonizing everything. And I wonder how healthy that is for them emotionally.
At the same time I want them to understand and have the knowledge that will protect them.

What do you mean by indoctrinated? Did they ask you why there are certain foods you don't serve, or did you preach to them about the evils of these foods? Will they feel disappointment or shame if they decide to eat these foods at a friend's house? I think there is a very fine line between teaching your kids how to eat healthy and subtle narcissism here, OSIT.



Kila said:
Also, does anyone have any suggestions for packed lunches?
Usually, I have put in a sandwich of some kind, lara bar(dried fruit and nuts) and a piece of fruit. Anyone have any ideas for lunch items that aren't sandwiches that kids might like. I have made wraps out of collard green leaves and I really like those but the kids are little less enthused.

Also what about holidays and sugar???

For lunches, I usually give my kids peanut butter sandwiches. I know, it's not the greatest food, but the bread is now gluten free. The peanut butter is organic. The kids like this and it makes them feel "normal" at school.

But in addition to that I usually pack some sort of trail-mix foods. Nuts and dried fruits. Nuts like pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, almonds, walnuts, peacans are really good. Dried fruits, if you can get dates, raisins, currents, pineapple, mango. If you have a food dehydrator, you can experiment with drying different fruits or even making your own all-natural/organic fruit roll-ups! :)

You can make gluten free cookies or other treats to pack in their lunch. Maybe try to let them help you make their own lunches. Get an assortment of different lunch foods and let them pick and choose what they want. If they want a sandwich, let them help with making the sandwich.

Try to put yourself in their shoes and imagine what they go through in the lunch room at school. They probably want to appear somewhat "normal" to their friends. Homemade treats are always a bonus in any school lunch, IMO. I know it's important for kids to eat healthy, but this has to be balanced with their own emotional needs as well.

Kila said:
I absolutely limit sugar. They never get sodas. My oldest didn't have a coke until a few years ago at someone's house. But what do you do say around Halloween? What I have done in the past is let them trick or treat and then they can trade in that candy for some really good(and expensive) organic chocolate something.
Xmas there is also more candy but only for that day. Easter ...yes ...more candy again I splurge and buy the best chocolate and marzipan I can find. What about birthdays and cakes???? I will try Laura's best cake recipe.

This is a tough one and I'm not sure what the best answer is here, especially with candy at times like Halloween, Xmas or Valentines Day. If your kids are in school, it's almost a given that they are going to be getting a lot of candy and treats during this time.

I don't know what the best way to handle this is. As long as my kids are healthy at the time, I will let them have a single piece of candy of their choice if they eat their dinner. I think that sets a reasonable boundary for them, but doesn't make them feel like their are being deprived of something that they feel should be theirs.


Kila said:
I had the conversation last night with the husband about wheat since his favorite meal to make for them in a pinch is spaghetti. The problem is I am only home to cook two night a week. Any ideas around something sort of equivalent that could be the very quick just got home from dance and it's already 7 pm sort of dinner that kids would like?

What about a gluten free pasta? There are buckwheat, quinoa and rice pasta's available that really don't effect the overall taste of the meal all that much in the end.
 
Kila said:
Does anyone have any particular recommendations for feeding children?

I'm not sure the Detox diet is really the way to go with a 3 year old, 6 year old and 11 year old. Maybe the 11 year old I dunno.

I guess it depends on how "detox diet" is defined. For us, it is eating foods that assist our body's natural detox system and, at the very least, do not add to the toxic burden.

Kila said:
As it is, their diet is organic. They eat meat, either farmers market or grass fed,

Good.

Kila said:
raw milk (this is very limited since it's a little like buying drugs in a dark alley here in Texas, so about a gallon a week)

Evillllll! NO dairy. That stuff is POISON.

Kila said:
eggs, organic butter, olive oil, grapeseed oil, sesame seed oil, coconut oil, palm oil and bacon drippings or duck fat. Fresh fruit and vegetables. They eat a lot of apples and oranges and berries are favorites. Nuts and dried fruits in small quantities. And bread..

Aside from eliminating wheat and beginning to incorporate buckwheat into the diet to make all the bread products, you might want to think about seeing if removing nuts for a period has any effects. A lot of people are allergic to nuts and don't even know it.

Kila said:
We don't really eat legumes. Beans are famine food around here and my kids won't eat them. I personally hate them.

That's too bad. Dried beans - for those who can eat them - are great sources of magnesium. Yeah, it's famine food. People in Norway who were under Nazi occupation had to eat a lot of beans and rice during WW II. At the end of that period, it was discovered that they were more healthy than people who had been eating a "normal diet."

Around here, beans cooked with ham or bacon are "comfort food." Especially split peas.

Kila said:
Brown rice is good though.
They hate eggs.. so I've given up on eggs. Maybe they are allergic.

Sensitivity to nuts often goes hand in hand with sensitivity to eggs.

Kila said:
The 3 year old won't eat salad or greens.

Do you eat a lot of salad and greens? Maybe it's a bit early for that one, though. My kids loved buttered broccoli and peas and carrots. They also acquired a very early taste for collards and okra and yellow squash. They thought it was a lot of fun to go out to the garden and pick the vegetables and help cook them so naturally, they wanted to eat them. Do you allow your children to go to market with you and help you pick out the veggies and prepare them?

Kila said:
The six year old loves salad but won't eat cooked greens. The 11 year old eats everything.

See above. Get them involved in selecting and preparing and offer them "choices" like "do you want to have spinach or broccoli tonight" instead of asking "do you want to have vegetables."

Kila said:
Oh, we also eat organ meats (from healthy animals) fish eggs and urchin roe. We eat these for the high content of fat soluble vitamins like A,D and K. It's a double edged sword I am aware due to the potential toxicity. But that is true about so many things.

Sounds good. Good calf's liver is a treat to some of us here, others won't touch it.

Kila said:
They have been well indoctrinated regarding 'poison" foods and I'm sure my 11 year old could probably write a 5 paragraph essay on the Excitotoxin family.

That's good!

Kila said:
Anyway, it's hard though, because their friends don't eat what we eat. And some of her friends are vegetarian so they pretty much live on soy and pasta.

Oh, lord! Evil stuff!

Kila said:
And what do I feed them when they are over here?? So what do you do? They go to a slumber party or out with friends to pizza? I know evil lurks everywhere but geez I just get soooo tired of constantly monitoring and demonizing everything. And I wonder how healthy that is for them emotionally.

I guess it depends on the sensitivity. If they eat very well 80 to 90 percent of the time, and KNOW how foods make them feel, that's a pretty good average. In the case of my kids, they simply can't tolerate wheat or dairy under any circumstances and had fairly instantaneous reactions though I always blamed it on the sugar or the preservatives in the meat (like on Pizza).

The best way to go about it is to do it as a family, make it so your house is a house of good food that is good for them, make it tasty and fun. (I'm working on the videos!) If you know the rules, it is not really tiring to monitor things in your house and to be matter-of-fact about what is good and what is not.

Sounds to me like what you really need is to really get it all seated in your own mind, make choices for yourself (and hopefully your husband will join you as an example for the children), make what is good for your kids YOUR choice, and don't belabor it.


Kila said:
At the same time I want them to understand and have the knowledge that will protect them.

Also, does anyone have any suggestions for packed lunches?
Usually, I have put in a sandwich of some kind, lara bar(dried fruit and nuts) and a piece of fruit. Anyone have any ideas for lunch items that aren't sandwiches that kids might like. I have made wraps out of collard green leaves and I really like those but the kids are little less enthused.

We make small buckwheat pancakes - very thin - and use them as sandwich bread. We also make buckwheat crepes and use them as wraps. Then, there are muffins, cookies, cakes, etc... just a whole host of goodies that can be made with buckwheat flour.

Kila said:
Also what about holidays and sugar???

I absolutely limit sugar. They never get sodas. My oldest didn't have a coke until a few years ago at someone's house. But what do you do say around Halloween? What I have done in the past is let them trick or treat and then they can trade in that candy for some really good(and expensive) organic chocolate something.
Xmas there is also more candy but only for that day. Easter ...yes ...more candy again I splurge and buy the best chocolate and marzipan I can find. What about birthdays and cakes???? I will try Laura's best cake recipe.

Well, sugar is tricky. We use xylitol mostly, but not everyone can tolerate it. You can use honey, natural, unrefined sugar (rapadura) and a couple other natural sweeteners. We make our own chocolates, cakes, cookies, puddings, etc... a very rich variety of things... you are only as limited as your imagination and skill as a kitchen chemist!

Kila said:
What sucks for me is I really don't like baking at all. Cooking.... well sometimes I like it if I have plenty of time on my hands. I could easily live on about 10 foods and never mind it at all. But my kids...

The good thing about buckwheat breads is the simplicity of it. Hang on, video coming!

Kila said:
I had the conversation last night with the husband about wheat since his favorite meal to make for them in a pinch is spaghetti. The problem is I am only home to cook two night a week. Any ideas around something sort of equivalent that could be the very quick just got home from dance and it's already 7 pm sort of dinner that kids would like?

Buckwheat or quinoa pasta.

If he learns how to make buckwheat pancakse, that will be a hit!

Kila said:
I'm also trying to really move toward a more alkalizing diet or at least more balance. But after a while it seems like I've cut out so many things that there isn't much left.

Well, join the club. In the end, there is only a variety of meats, vegetables, and buckwheat flour. But there's a LOT that can be done with it.

Last night we had batter fried fish to die for, deep fried sweet potatoes, fresh spinach, and I made a variation of a carrot cake with dried pineapple and raisins in it. I made a tapioca based lemon/tangerine pudding to pour on the cake as "icing."

Nearly every morning we have buckwheat cakes in various ways: with xylitol, cinnamon; with sausage as a sandwich; with natural fruit jellies; and occasionally with maple syrup. We also cook big pots of quinoa and millet and use them in various ways. Quinoa makes a wonderful taboule that can go with any meat and veggie to make a great meal. Millet with bacon drippings, salt and pepper, and bacon is a great breakfast or even lunch.

Chopped meat of various kinds in buckwheat gravy with onions and veggies added is a good way to make them tasty. Plenty of garlic and pepper makes this a favorite around here.

Soups, lamb stew, pork roast with saurkraut and apples, sweet potatoes, veggies, meats... there really is a good variety of things and ways you can cook it.

We haven't yet come up with a substitute for cheese... and we DO miss it, but I sure don't miss how bad it made me feel.
 
We don't really eat legumes. Beans are famine food around here and my kids won't eat them

Yep, beans are a challenge. I found out that lentils and peas don't have the typical "beany" flavor or effect on the digestive system, and are very delicious in their own right, either in sprouted salads or in a soup or stew.

My family wouldn't touch navy or kidney beans with a ten-foot pole, but they will eat them if they are cleverly hidden in a hearty soup. Also, garbanzo bean (chick peas) are delicious sprouted or mashed into a hummus-type dip.

just a fwiw
 
Thanks to all for the many suggestions..

Laura wrote:
Sensitivity to nuts often goes hand in hand with sensitivity to eggs.

That is very interesting....they can't stand eggs and aren't that wild about nuts.

Do you eat a lot of salad and greens? Maybe it's a bit early for that one, though. My kids loved buttered broccoli and peas and carrots. They also acquired a very early taste for collards and okra and yellow squash. They thought it was a lot of fun to go out to the garden and pick the vegetables and help cook them so naturally, they wanted to eat them. Do you allow your children to go to market with you and help you pick out the veggies and prepare them?

Yes we do eat a lot of salads and slaws of all kinds. My two oldest really like salads. The six year old won't eat cooked greens but she'll eat nearly any green in a salad. My salads usually have variety of lettuces, kales, cabbage, grated root vegetables, sprouts etc.
But I love sauteed greens. Probably, she doesn't like them because I tend to cook the stronger tasting greens I pick in the spring like dandelion and wild lettuce and chicory. She does like miners lettuce steamed.

See above. Get them involved in selecting and preparing and offer them "choices" like "do you want to have spinach or broccoli tonight" instead of asking "do you want to have vegetables."

I don't really offer food choices. I fix the food or somebody does and it's available. I do try to get them to 'taste' everything and I always serve salad first when their appetites are fresh. But otherwise they eat some of what is available to eat. And if they don't eat enough because they didn't like it, there will be more food later to choose from. Sometimes the six year old will eat nothing but salad for several meals. The oldest eats a lot of meat. But usually eats some of everything. The boy also eats a lot of meat too and will eat any kind of fruit, and some cooked vegetables. But just really isn't into salad yet.

I
guess it depends on the sensitivity. If they eat very well 80 to 90 percent of the time, and KNOW how foods make them feel, that's a pretty good average. In the case of my kids, they simply can't tolerate wheat or dairy under any circumstances and had fairly instantaneous reactions though I always blamed it on the sugar or the preservatives in the meat (like on Pizza).

My oldest is like that and she totally gets how crappy sugar and wheat make her feel and sort of self regulates. If she is at a friends house and has some ice cream or something she totally knows that later she is going to feel horrible. But sometimes you just opt to feel horrible and I don't make a fuss about it.

We make small buckwheat pancakes - very thin - and use them as sandwich bread. We also make buckwheat crepes and use them as wraps. Then, there are muffins, cookies, cakes, etc... just a whole host of goodies that can be made with buckwheat flour.

Okay I'm on it... can't wait for the videos



RyanX said

What do you mean by indoctrinated? Did they ask you why there are certain foods you don't serve, or did you preach to them about the evils of these foods? Will they feel disappointment or shame if they decide to eat these foods at a friend's house? I think there is a very fine line between teaching your kids how to eat healthy and subtle narcissism here, OSIT.


Could you elaborate a little bit more about the negative side of that?

For lunches, I usually give my kids peanut butter sandwiches. I know, it's not the greatest food, but the bread is now gluten free. The peanut butter is organic. The kids like this and it makes them feel "normal" at school.

But in addition to that I usually pack some sort of trail-mix foods. Nuts and dried fruits. Nuts like pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, almonds, walnuts, peacans are really good. Dried fruits, if you can get dates, raisins, currents, pineapple, mango. If you have a food dehydrator, you can experiment with drying different fruits or even making your own all-natural/organic fruit roll-ups! Smiley

You can make gluten free cookies or other treats to pack in their lunch. Maybe try to let them help you make their own lunches. Get an assortment of different lunch foods and let them pick and choose what they want. If they want a sandwich, let them help with making the sandwich.

Try to put yourself in their shoes and imagine what they go through in the lunch room at school. They probably want to appear somewhat "normal" to their friends. Homemade treats are always a bonus in any school lunch, IMO. I know it's important for kids to eat healthy, but this has to be balanced with their own emotional needs as well.


My kids go to a little one room coop school(24 kids K-8th) so their lunch room is pretty groovy. Nobody is making fun of anybody. I could easily send some non sandwich thing. But I will try one of the Gluten free breads.. any recommendations? It is nice to have toast.
Personally though I am trying to ease away from cereals and simple carbs. sooo...just trying to figure it out. Now I think about it I could probably send them salads with chicken breast and they would be pretty happy. Sometimes I think I just get stuck inside the box.



I don't know what the best way to handle this is. As long as my kids are healthy at the time, I will let them have a single piece of candy of their choice if they eat their dinner. I think that sets a reasonable boundary for them, but doesn't make them feel like their are being deprived of something that they feel should be theirs.

Yes.. that's where I'm at too.


Yep, beans are a challenge. I found out that lentils and peas don't have the typical "beany" flavor or effect on the digestive system, and are very delicious in their own right, either in sprouted salads or in a soup or stew.

My family wouldn't touch navy or kidney beans with a ten-foot pole, but they will eat them if they are cleverly hidden in a hearty soup. Also, garbanzo bean (chick peas) are delicious sprouted or mashed into a hummus-type dip.


I do use chick peas and I could probably use lentils. I use these sprouted in salads a lot of the time. So maybe I'll try a lentil soup.



Laura also wrote..

Evillllll! NO dairy. That stuff is POISON.


While I totally agree that homogenized dairy is poison for many reasons not least of which is the fact that the fat has been altered and transformed into a trans fat even if the milk is "organic" .
I have read quite a bit of research indicating that raw milk, both bovine and caprine, can be beneficial. And while it is true that some people have allergic reactions to any kind of milk, some though not all, can do well on raw milk, goats milk being the best tolerated.
In my own practice I have used muscle testing and while 100% of people test weak when given 'regular' (even if organic) milk, most will test strong again when given raw milk. Most, but not all. Much like eggs and nuts and seafood, some will have intense allergic reactions while for others these foods are well tolerated and offer good nutrition.
That said, I would love to see some of the research around dairy that you have used to draw the above conclusion, if you would be so kind as to point me to it. I have read a great deal of research myself, but perhaps there is more on the distinctions between the two that I am missing.
 
Kila said:
While I totally agree that homogenized dairy is poison for many reasons not least of which is the fact that the fat has been altered and transformed into a trans fat even if the milk is "organic" .
I have read quite a bit of research indicating that raw milk, both bovine and caprine, can be beneficial. And while it is true that some people have allergic reactions to any kind of milk, some though not all, can do well on raw milk, goats milk being the best tolerated.
In my own practice I have used muscle testing and while 100% of people test weak when given 'regular' (even if organic) milk, most will test strong again when given raw milk. Most, but not all. Much like eggs and nuts and seafood, some will have intense allergic reactions while for others these foods are well tolerated and offer good nutrition.
That said, I would love to see some of the research around dairy that you have used to draw the above conclusion, if you would be so kind as to point me to it. I have read a great deal of research myself, but perhaps there is more on the distinctions between the two that I am missing.

Hi Kila, there have been a few discussions about this on the forum. If you'll use the search engine, entering 'raw milk', you'll find them. :)
 
Now, regarding milk, my experience and observation has been that there really isn'at ANY good reason to drink it or to have cheeses etc. But I will concede that maybe some people can drink it and get away with it. But for "canary in the mine" people such as myself and my kids and others I know, it is almost instantly obvious that it is bad. Some people may not have instant bad effects, but I think it is doing damage to the system without external evidence, such as damaging the blood vessels.

THE MILK LETTER : A MESSAGE TO MY PATIENTS
Robert M. Kradjian, MD
Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery,
Seton Medical Centre #302 - 1800 Sullivan Ave.
Daly City, CA 94015 USA
Text Only

"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a
nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question
it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated
their effort.

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is
surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was
our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our
mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the
only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's
milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or
water buffalo milk.

Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us.
Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged.
We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and
add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese,
butter, and yogurt.

Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring
images of healthy, beautiful people on our television
screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good
for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to
have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School
lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal
will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our
nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up
an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that
colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other
essential nutrients were made available at no cost for
schools. Cow's milk became "normal."

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings
that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's
milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it
makes them ill.

There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive
of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the
March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join
the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy
products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds
radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic
food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the
mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally
Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our
answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust
any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are
they simply repeating what their professors learned years
ago? What about the new voices urging caution?

I believe that there are three reliable sources of
information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of
nature. The second is to study the history of our own
species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific
literature on the subject of milk.

Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to
1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk
recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of
theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is
no lack of scientific information on this subject. I
reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles
that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and
inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly
less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors
spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side
effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to
believe by the industry. The main focus of the published
reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal
irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions
in infants and children as well as infections such as
salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with
bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as
concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by
blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of
chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among
children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar
infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic
and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed
centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,
sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,
lymphoma and cancer.

I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration
of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living
mammals and what happens with human groups living in close
to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and
interesting group to study. Here we are limited to
speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains
available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt
whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,
muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),
and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel
that these people are not important for us to study,
consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in
almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to
100,000 years ago.

WHAT IS MILK?

Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term
nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.
Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk
for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the
time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced
to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar
example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for
just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and
teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature
only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not
possible for animals living in a natural state to continue
with the drinking of milk after weaning.

IS ALL MILK THE SAME?

Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have
settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size,
and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems
'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our
customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of
another species of mammal?

Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk
of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps
the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly
some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm
not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is
for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for
calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly,
this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good
judgement on this one.

Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal
is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of
that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in
protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has
five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is
markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to
human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as
much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.
(Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It
simply is not designed for humans.

Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not
only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative
composition that is critical for the very best in health and
growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical
doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the
crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop
its unique specializations.

Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological
development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not
have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle
groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the
demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's
hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material
for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.

Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it
can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992
(Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly
placed premature infants into two groups. One group received
a proper formula, the other group received human breast
milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children
were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing,
the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well,
why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the
rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph
Holman described an infant who developed profound
neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous
fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid -
just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha
linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the
neurological disorders cleared.

In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and
Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem
in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.

In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found
that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency
syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s
pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas
without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research,
the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem.
Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is
markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.

WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE

Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000
pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000
pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics,
hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding;
that's how.

The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine
growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is
supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to
Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the
milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn,
Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there
have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on
the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned
BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with
adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules
usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but
I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth
hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked
increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then,
requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the
antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is
uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt
that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk.
A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed
to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling
would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is
awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can
consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer
burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any
surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support
price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757
million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on
average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer
Reports, May 1992: 330-32).

Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This
includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones.
Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are
simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be
horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from
one to one and a half million white blood cells per
millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't
already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to
describe white cells where they don't belong would be to
call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is
it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally,
will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The
United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that
the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the
public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only
4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.

As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman
claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still
think that milk is the safest product we have."

Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the
following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were
contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This
from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The
Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in
Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate
(Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).

What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found
few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When
they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent
of the milk samples showed drug traces.

Let's focus in on this because itÂ’s critical to our
understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a
disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so
drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the
relatively high level. A more powerful test called the
'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per
billion.

One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are
forever getting infections around the udder that require
ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us
that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears
in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the
University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk',
milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis
of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow
cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff.
Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has
mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, itÂ’s in the
study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages
containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.

IT GETS WORSE

Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge
study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had
contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the
sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it--
dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are
concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of
interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had
only half the levels of contamination).

A recent report showed an increased concentration of
pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer
when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic
disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature
describe problems. Just scan these titles:

1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed
Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced
Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906
3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in
Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15

There are many others. There are dozens of studies
describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in
children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk
allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are
transmitted to the infant.

A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of
Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in
infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to
provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used
before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its
use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre
Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation,
cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in
infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-
borne infections and contaminants, and said:

Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of
uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole
bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole
milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't
it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human
nutrition to come to an end?

In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:

It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the
infant in the first year of life because of its association
with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron
that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a
day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal
bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.

I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be
consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose
intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of
atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.

In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known
pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he
articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for
the first two years of life. Here is his quotation:

I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from
the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk
is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence
of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous
and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a
study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it
will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or
economic profit involved.

OTHER PROBLEMS

Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination.
Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be
traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major
problem and some folks want to go back to those times by
insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This
is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of
all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983
were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old
brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More
about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is
still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne
diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association
(251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections
caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk.
This is despite safety precautions.

All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A
Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive
correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein
and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data
from various countries. Conversely a possible negative
relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3
months and diabetes risk.".

Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had
higher levels of serum antibodies to cowsÂ’ milk (Diabetes
Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from
this study:

We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption
is altered in children who will have insulin dependent
diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to
proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of
their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than
normal.

The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating
study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile
insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have
migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times
greater in the English group compared to children remaining
in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase?
The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great
Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the
availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan
as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the
same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe
that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about
adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is
strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic
predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all
in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered
to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant
are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the
last article concluded that the cooler climate in England
altered viruses and caused the very real increase in
diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top
admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to
do with the disease.

The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England
Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported
in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital
for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers.
In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy
product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin
dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children
out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per
1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against
the milk protein during the first year of life, the
researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas
in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in
people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142
Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found
that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies
against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear
evidence that the children had a raging auto immune
disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400
children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will
receive no dairy products during the first nine months of
life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a
definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of
the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the
breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or
the results will be confounded by the transmission of the
cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what
was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very
interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the
association says: "It does not mean that children should
stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should
withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good
protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein"
that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy
industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association
in the past?

LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!

I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is
found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United
States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds.
Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large
percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95
per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation--
if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk
is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples
the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I
sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully
monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981;
213:1014).

This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany
deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of
keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of
the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and
Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from
their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader
in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We
are the worst in the world with the former exception of
Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist
who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a
Master's degree in Public Health.

As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by
pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl
like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in
April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an
accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized
milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed,
killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the
question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this:
"How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they
were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully
active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be
fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases
blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports
of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in
the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern
California.

What happens to other species of mammals when they are
exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question
and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals
exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep,
goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and
chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion
(both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in
milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts
to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human
cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody
formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing.
How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to
humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured
particles?

If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we
could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to
have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so?
Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska,
South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically
higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In
Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine
leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human
leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher
rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers
have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research
shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains
access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the
intestinal wall.

An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana
from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance
of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the
economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they
noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows
with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia
produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis
(increased white blood cell count), the production fell off.
They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of
bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does
this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can
keep it under control? You can get the details on this
business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb.
1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university
department feels that this is an economic and not a human
health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of
Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the
political pressures are too great. You're on you own.

What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of
producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it
can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related
cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:

1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and
Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112
(1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a
Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the
Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A
Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal
Infant. 75:182-186; 1985

In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half
years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had
3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs.
British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.

One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from
Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the
Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is
entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many
people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham
agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption
in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956.,
in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were
highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by
Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest
and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New
Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold
difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a
startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in
Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this,
confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in
migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of
lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to
the USA)!

An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built
at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the
spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human
consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift
from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the
idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.

Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation
between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion
in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his
article follow:

The average intake of protein in many countries is far in
excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive
consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the
causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.
Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of
antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous
membrane.

This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to
which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological
stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is
believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The
gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier
to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating
antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent
lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce
generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and
profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively
estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released
by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production
of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized,
killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause
disease.

Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was
reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9,
March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11
and a half years). For most cancers there was no association
between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma,
there was a strong positive association. If one drank two
glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products),
the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking
less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.

There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be
aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by
the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man.
The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the
second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first
of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and
causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been
known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to
have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep
parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your
good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat
meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept
Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the
unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date,
over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in
keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are
reported as infected each month. The British public is
concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per
cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to
children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease
syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-
Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that
transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."

The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the
feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced
at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected
sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle
and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the
disease does not exist in the United States. However, there
may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at
auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated,
dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to
walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to
electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to
dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they
are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death
is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein
food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that
have been fed this protein have developed a fatal
encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire
colonies of minks have been lost in this manner,
particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective
agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the
ill "downer cows."

The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically
entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-
30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known
to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce
contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered
the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They
say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the
incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.

The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United
States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely
related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do
not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the
sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the
virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The
USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if
antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no
plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of
humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day
we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with
these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the
products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare)
strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle
E. coli deaths of 1993.

A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research,
October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the
Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They
report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to
a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this
disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the
presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia
virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica
Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these
developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to
assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in
the animal kingdom.

OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?

Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty
tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at
Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.
Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent
daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users.
They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce
the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by
numerous investigators.

Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical
School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the
1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed
between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption.
These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk
is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is
facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the
lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis,
but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the
American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989.
These articles come from two of the country's leading
institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.

Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion?
The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569
controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the
International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons
drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold
increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never
drinking whole milk.

For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates
for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or
European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in
this research area feel that the total fat intake is the
difference.

There are not many reports studying an association between
milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though
was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park
Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,
1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer
patients and comparable control subjects:

Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole
milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who
reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the
evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is
related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate
cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and
is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to
drink cows' milk?

It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other
than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion,
these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and
it's a source of amino acids (proteins).

Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all
about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones
and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it,
milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source
for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive
amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium
absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk
provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H
egsted in England has been writing for years about the
geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the
countries with the highest intake of dairy products are
invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He
feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be
given below.

Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium
ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no
effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most
important such article appeared recently in the British
Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry
can't reach. Another study in the United States actually
showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal
women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.
(Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of
hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in
particular protein intake, are critically important. Another
observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note
the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium
among people living on a natural diet without milk.

For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look at
calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting
groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake
estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a
high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is
among the worst in the world. The other instructive group
are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent
protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350
mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women
have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more
children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When
African women immigrate to the United States, do they
develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are
much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic
difference that is modified by diet.

To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your
calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the
cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the
ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants
and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by
eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals
also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all
of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with
their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans
living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

If animal references do not convince you, think of the
several billion humans on this earth who have never seen
cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be
prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest
this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far
less than that seen in the countries where dairy products
are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,
but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are
grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing
on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play
a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a
deterrent to good bone health.

THE PROTEIN MYTH

Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to
"make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the
nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course
milk is fitted right in.

As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein-
-"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily
what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty.
Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

For this information we rely on the most authoritative
source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,
1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary
Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of
interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr.
Richard Havel of the University of California in San
Francisco.

First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been
steadily revised downward in successive editions. The
current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19
through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day
for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know
that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by
.6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large
safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add
some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams
a day if necessary!

Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an
ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not
have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical
for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly
less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated
belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to
avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)
Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and
European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has
serious consequences when maintained over decades. The
problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,
atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence
that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are
related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent
renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the
dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers
of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you
should know that the protein content of human milk is amount
the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?

Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal
carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-
borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose,
but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.

What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems
that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed
into the blood stream without first being broken down into
monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires
the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes
to break down the galactose into glucose.

Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the
ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts
off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us
something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact
that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the
tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not
needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are
lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent
introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow"
milk from another group of mammals that the survival
advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us
to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be
advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the
human beings in the history of the world did. And further,
why was it just the white or light skinned humans who
retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to
lose it?

Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly
recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000
years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration
of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins
and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the
production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does
dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to
sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide
the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunl
 
Casein in dairy products creates much havoc just like wheat in some grains do. It has to do with a failure of a particular enzyme which disassembles the gluten and casein protein, a digestive process necessary in order to extract the nutrients from these proteins for our bodies. And because of the failure of this enzyme to do its job, a remaining undigested fragment of those proteins survive and to our defense/immune system this fragment resembles a virus. Thinking that it is a virus, our bodies will trigger an immune/defense response to protect our bodies from it. And because this gluten or casein fragment is so similar to various diseases causing virus, it will generate a complex reaction, an autoimmune response which is suspected to play a role in type I diabetes, multiple sclerosis and autism. Complex immune responses, damage different tissues in different people, so the range of dis-eases is very diverse.

Also, the undigested gluten or casein fragments look also like opium-like drugs which can have a significant influence in our behavior and brains, causing changes in perception, mood, and behavior.
 
Hiromi Shinya talks about his family's dramatic experience with toxic foods in his book the Enzyme Factor. I scanned the relevant parts of the book to share with you all here:

Hiromi Shinya said:
I came of age in Japan just after the war, when Amer Ivan technologies and customs were transforming my native land. I wanted to study medicine in America. I took a medical degree in Japan, then, in 1963, moved to the United States with my young bride to start the surgical residency program at the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York.

Coming to the U.S. from a foreign country, I understood that I had to try hard and be really good to be respected as a surgeon in America. Growing up I had studied martial arts and, because of that training, I learned to use each hand equally well. Being ambidextrous enabled me to perform surgery with unusual efficiency.

During my residency, I assisted Dr. Leon Ginsburg, one of the discoverers (with Drs. Burrill Bernard Crohn and Gordon Oppenheimer) of Crohn's disease. One day the chief resident and the senior resident who usually assisted Dr. Ginsburg couldn't assist in the operating room, so Dr. Ginsburg's nurse, who had seen me work, recommended me. Being ambidextrous, I finished very quickly. At first Dr. Ginsburg couldn't believe it was done correctly in such a short operation and he was angry, but when he saw how well the patient healed without the excessive bleeding and swelling that follows a lengthy surgery, he was impressed. I started working with him regularly.

Neither my wife nor our baby daughter did well in the United States. My wife was sick much of the time, weak, and she couldn't breast feed, so we gave our daughter baby formula made from cow's milk. I would work all day at the hospital and come home and help my wife who was pregnant again. I changed the diapers and gave the baby a bottle, but my daughter cried a lot and then she developed a rash all over her skin. She was itching and miserable.

Then my son was born. His arrival was a joy, but before long he developed rectal bleeding. About that time I had acquired the first primitive colonoscope, so I was able to examine my little son and found an inflammation of the colon, or ulcerative colitis.

I was devastated. Here I was, a doctor, but I couldn't cure my beautiful young wife or relieve the suffering of my son or daughter. I hadn't learned anything in medical school that would tell me what was causing them to be sick. I consulted other doctors, the best I knew, but no one could help me. Being a skillful surgeon or giving medicine for symptoms was not enough. I wanted to know what caused disease.

In Japan I had never seen the kind of atrophic dermatitis that my daughter had, so I started investigating what in the U.S. could cause my daughter to have this. In Japan we didn't have much dairy food so I thought perhaps it was the cow's milk in her baby formula. When we took away the milk she quickly improved, and I realized she was allergic to the cow's milk. She couldn't digest it and undigested particles that were small enough to pass from her intestines into her blood were attacked by her immune system as if they were foreign invaders. The same thing turned out to be true with my son. When we stopped giving him milk his colitis disappeared.

My wife's illness was finally diagnosed as lupus. Her blood count would drop and she would become pale and anemic. She was in and out of the hospital as we struggled to save her life. She died before I knew enough to help her.

Even today I can't say what caused her lupus, but I do know that she was genetically predisposed to have an over-reactive immune system. She went to a Westernized convent school when she was growing up in Japan where they gave her lots of milk. No doubt she was allergic to milk, as her two children would later be. Exposed over and over again to a food that created an allergic reaction, her immune system must have been depleted, leaving her open to the autoimmune disease of lupus.

Because of these experiences, I began to understand how vital diet is to our health. That was over fifty years ago and in the years since, I have examined the stomachs and colons and taken the dietary history of more than 300,000 patients.

Here are some interesting quotes about milk as well:

Hiromi Shinya said:
The main nutrients found in milk are protein, fat, glucose, calcium and vitamins. Milk is very popular because it contains a lot of calcium and is supposed to prevent osteoporosis.

But the truth is, there is no other food that is as difficult to digest as milk. Since milk is a smooth liquid substance, there are some people who drink it like water when they are thirsty, but that is a big mistake. Casein, which accounts for approximately 80% of the protein found in milk, immediately clumps together once it enters the stomach, making digestion very difficult. Furthermore, that component is homogenized in the milk sold in stores. Homogenization means equalizing the fat content in milk by stirring it. The reason homogenization is bad is that when milk is stirred, air gets mixed in, turning the milk's fat component into an oxidized fatty substance — fat in an advanced state of oxidation. In other words, homogenized milk produces free radicals and exerts a very negative influence on the body.

The milk containing oxidized fat then gets pasteurized at high temperatures over 212°F. Enzymes are sensitive to heat, and begin to be destroyed at temperatures 200°F. In other words, milk sold in stores not only lacks precious enzymes, but the fat is oxidized and the quality of the proteins is changed due to the high temperature. In a sense, milk is the worst type of food.

In fact, I have heard that if you feed milk sold in stores to a calf instead of milk straight from the mother cow, the calf will die in four or five days. Life cannot be sustained with foods that do not have enzymes.

MILK CAUSES INFLAMMATION

The first time I learned how bad milk is for the body was more than 35 years ago, when my own children developed atopic dermatitis' at six or seven months of age.

The children's mother followed the pediatrician's instructions, but no matter how much treatment they received, the children's dermatitis did not improve at all. Then, at around age three or four, my son began having severe diarrhea. And finally, he even started getting blood in his stool. Upon examination with an endoscope, I discovered that the toddler manifested early stages of ulcerative colitis'.

Knowing ulcerative colitis is closely linked to one's diet, I focused on what kind of food the children usually ate. As it turned out, just when the children began developing atopic dermatitis, my wife had stopped breastfeeding and had started giving them milk under the pediatrician's advice. We eliminated all milk and milk products from the children's diet from that point on. Sure enough, the bloody stool and diarrhea, even the atopic dermatitis, completely subsided.

Following that experience, I began obtaining an itemized list of how much milk and milk products were consumed when I asked my patients about their dietary history. According to my clinical data, there is a high likelihood of developing a predisposition to allergies by consuming milk and milk products. This correlates with recent allergy studies that report that when pregnant women drink milk, their children are more prone to develop atopic dermatitis.

During the past 30 years in Japan, the number of patients with atopic dermatitis and hay fever has increased at an astonishing rate. That number may currently be as much as one out of every five people. There are many theories as to why there has been such a rapid increase in the number of people with allergies, but I believe the number one cause is the introduction of milk in school lunches in the early 1960s.

Milk, which contains many oxidized fatty substances, damages the intestinal environment, increasing the amount of bad bacteria and destroying the balance of the intestinal bacterial flora. As a result, toxins such as free radicals, hydrogen sulfides, and:ammonia are produced in the intestine. Research about what kind of process these toxins go through and what kinds of illnesses arise is still ongoing, but several research papers have reported that milk not only causes various allergies but is also linked with diabetes among children'. These research papers are available on the internet, so I encourage you to read them yourselves.

WHY DRINKING TOO MUCH MILK WILL CAUSE OSTEOPOROSIS

The biggest common misconception about milk is that it helps prevent osteoporosis. Since the calcium content in our bodies decreases with age, we are told to drink a lot of milk to prevent osteoporosis. But this is a big mistake. Drinking too much milk actually causes osteoporosis.

It is commonly believed that calcium in milk is better absorbed than the calcium in other foods such as small fish, but that is not entirely true.
The calcium concentration in human blood is normally fixed at 9-10 mg. However, when you drink milk, the calcium concentration in your blood suddenly rises. Although at first glance, it may seem as if a lot of calcium has been absorbed, this rise in blood calcium level has its
downside. When the calcium concentration in the blood suddenly rises, the body tries to return this abnormal level back to normal by excreting calcium from the kidneys through urine. In other words, if you try to drink milk in order to get calcium, this actually produces the ironic result of decreasing the overall level of calcium in your body. All of the four big dairy countries - America, Sweden, Denmark and Finland - where a lot of milk is consumed every day, see many cases of hip fractures and osteoporosis.

In contrast to this, small fish and seaweed, which Japanese people have been eating for ages and were originally thought to be low in calcium, contain calcium that is not quickly absorbed in a way that raises the blood calcium concentration level. Moreover, there were hardly any cases of osteoporosis in Japan during the time when people did not drink milk. Even now, you do not hear about many people having osteoporosis among those who do not drink milk on a regular basis. The body can absorb the necessary calcium and minerals through the digestion of small shrimp, fish, and seaweed.

WHY I QUESTION THE "MYTH" ABOUT YOGURT

Recently in Japan, various types of yogurt such as "Caspian Sea yogurt" and "aloe yogurt" have become very popular because of their widely advertised health benefits. But I believe these are all misrepresentations.

What I often hear from people who eat yogurt is that their gastrointestinal condition has improved, they are no longer constipated, or their waist has gotten smaller. And they believe these results are due to the lactobacilli found in all yogurts.

However, this belief in the benefits of lactobacilli is questionable from the start. Lactobacilli are originally found in the human intestine. These bacteria are called "intestinal resident bacteria." The human body has a defense system against bacteria and viruses coming from the outside, so even those bacteria that are normally good for your body, like lactobacilli, will be attacked and destroyed by the body's natural defenses if they are not intestinal resident bacteria.

The first line of defense is stomach acid. When lactobacilli from the yogurt enter the stomach, most are killed by stomach acid. For that reason, there have been recent improvements made and yogurts are being sold with the catchphrase, "lactobacilli that reach your intestine."

However, even if the bacteria do reach the intestine, is it really possible for them to work hand in hand with the intestinal resident bacteria?
The reason I question this claim about yogurt is because in the clinical setting, the intestinal characteristics of people who eat yogurt everyday are never good. I strongly suspect that, even if the lactobacilli in yogurt reach the intestine alive, they do not make the intestine work better but only disrupt the intestinal flora instead.

Then why do many people feel yogurt is effective in improving their health? For many, yogurt seems to "cure" constipation. This "cure," however, is actually a mild case of diarrhea. Here is the way this probably works: Adults lack enough of the enzyme that breaks down lactose. Lactose is the sugar found in milk products, but lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose, begins to decrease in our bodies as we grow older. This is natural in a sense, because milk is something infants drink, not adults. In other words, lactase is an enzyme that is not required by adults.

Yogurt contains a lot of lactose. Thus, when you eat yogurt, it cannot be properly digested owing to the lack of lactase enzymes, which in turn results in indigestion. In short, many people develop mild diarrhea when they eat yogurt. Consequently, this mild diarrhea, which is really the excretion of stagnant stool that has been accumulating in the colon until then, gets mistakenly characterized as a cure for constipation.

Your intestine's condition will worsen if you eat yogurt everyday. I can say this with confidence based on my clinical observations. If you eat yogurt everyday, the smell of your stool and gas should be increasingly pungent. This is an indication that your intestinal environment is getting
worse. The reason for the smell is that toxins are being produced inside the colon. Thus, even though people talk about the health effects of yogurt in general (and yogurt ompanies arc more than pleased to tout their own products), in reality, there are many things about yogurt that are not good for your body.

This is the gist of it, there are other things about milk in the book, but the articles posted in the forum cover it also very well.
 
Thanks for the info on milk, Laura and Psyche!

This whole milk business has troubled me for quite a while now. Now what would you recommend as a good calcium source for a child who is no longer breast feeding, but still under 2 years old? I would like to have some options for our son concerning his afternoon snack which his mother feel should consist mainly of yogurt (because of the calcium) and his occasional milk/cheese consumption. Looking at the tables of calcium concentration in different foods would suggest (when avoiding cheese, milk and soy product): small fatty fish, green leafy vegetables, berries or nettle. I guess calcium supplementation is out of the question at his age?

Added: Maybe some rice milk with extra calcium added?
 
Aragorn said:
small fatty fish, green leafy vegetables, berries or nettle.

I was going to suggest sardines and green leafy veggies ;) They are good sources of calcium.
 
I totally identify with your struggle on feeding children. It is such a pain and so much work to keep on top of when added to everything else we have to deal with in a day. I've decided to relent and let my children choose whatever foods they want to eat when we are out in a restaurants (which might be three or four times per month max) and I don't make a big deal of anything consumed at friends houses just so they won't rebel or feel embarrassed. Here's an example of my daughter's current thoughts on gluten free in the valentine card she made and gave me yesterday:

"Dear momy and Dady. For valintines day I want a cacke. but not just any cacke. I dont want a discusting horrid Gluten free cacke."

Ha! Apparently I not only need to work on a good recipe but spelling with her as well! :lol:

Needless to say our adventure in gluten free baking hasn't yielded much success. I've had luck with cookies and brownies but at least 10 different gluten free bread recipes have literally flopped-we've just been suffering without it. I'll mention now that my ego took quite a beating through it all since I'm a trained cook and can easily bake evil wheat bread from scratch- :huh:

The 9 year old is starting to put it together that she gets headaches and feels crummy when she eats bread or wheat (I count that as a huge success) and her stomach gets upset with dairy. Hopefully that will cause her to make better choices in the future but I've decided to not be hardcore with the kids. Something I've considered is just telling her that she's allergic. She has so many friends that are allergic and receive special attention on account of it that I think she would be OK having that label. That word seems to be taken seriously in our culture at the moment so that might be a way for your oldest to save face in front of her friends if you find that she's embarrassed by all of the health food like mine is....
As for feeding friends, I just do not have wheat and dairy in my house (sometimes small amounts of cheese) so it's just not available from my home and when other kids come over I'll feed them snacks like rice crackers or home made popcorn, cut up fruit or whatever. No complaints yet.

As for the milk it has been a rough go for my five year old and he still does not like the alternative I've provided which is homemade raw almond milk. I sweeten it with a bit of xylitol and it goes over very well here except for him. I got the recipe from this board so you should be able to search and find it. I make a double batch that lasts about three days and it's great in smoothies which might be a good way to introduce it. The raw almonds have a much subtler flavor than roasted and they are very nutritious (I personally think the roasted almond milk is lovely but the kids hate it so....). If you try this recipe, you may want to cut back on the amount of water called for just to make it creamier like the whole milk they are used to. Also look for a baking supply store near you. You can buy your almonds and many GF flours there in larger quantaties, for better prices and the products are usually fresher on account of the high turn over. I go once a month and stock up on frozen berries (fresh raspberries are $10 for 1/2 pint here in Singapore! insanity!), raw blanched almonds, flour and frozen organic butter.

We have also had success with buckwheat crepes drizzled with a bit of honey or maple syrup so definitely give that a try too.

This lady has great recipes if your looking to bake including many that don't have eggs or dairy either:

glutenfreegoddess.blogspot.com

I feel your pain.
Good luck and keep posting your successes since I need all the help I can get too!


Rx
 
Kila said:
RyanX said

What do you mean by indoctrinated? Did they ask you why there are certain foods you don't serve, or did you preach to them about the evils of these foods? Will they feel disappointment or shame if they decide to eat these foods at a friend's house? I think there is a very fine line between teaching your kids how to eat healthy and subtle narcissism here, OSIT.


Could you elaborate a little bit more about the negative side of that?

Sure. Just so you know, this is a mistake I first made with my kids and I only know this through first hand experience of seeing how Narcissistic I was as a parent. For the longest time I would basically control and dictate exactly what the kids ate. I would let them have their choice at restaurants or friend's houses, but at home I made sure they ate whatever was on their plates whether they liked it not. There were no exceptions and if they protested they got scolded. I've always managed to get the best foods for my kids and never kept junk food in the house, so that was usually not a problem. I justified my own hard-line stance on healthy food with the kids as being "for their own good".

Then after studying Narcissism, I made the horrible discover of how bad a practice this is with children and how this very method of treatment from my own parents is exactly what has led to many of my own emotional problems today. I realized I was a horrible parent. This has caused me a lot of discomfort and still does to this day. That's probably why I have a lot to say on this topic since I've tried to put a lot of thought into it.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by "indoctrinate". I hope you just mean that you give them age appropriate lessons about proper food choices and set a good example by following those choices yourself. This is perfect and I commend you if that is the case. I think kids need room to breathe when it comes to food. They want to make food choices, they want to choose their own portions of food, they want to help out in the kitchen, they want to help make their school lunches and so forth. They don't want to be lectured about food, especially when they haven't put two and two together that certain foods will lead to health problems. To them, all they know is that it tastes really good, so what's the problem?

I think a little bit of junk food now and again is OK for kids as long as they are overall healthy. There are certainly some health situations that call for a very strict diet, but most of the time that isn't the case. You don't have to go out of your way to buy junk, there are plenty of situations in our culture where they are given junk food treats. It sounds like this is what you do and I think this is OK. Sure, we would all love it if our kids never ate a morsel of toxic food for the rest of their lives, but we know that ain't going to happen!

I don't think you want to be in the situation where the kids feel that you will love them less because they choose to eat junk food sometimes, or even most of the time! This is the aspect of Narcissism I was referring to in my initial comment. It can be very subtle the way parents show this. Just the wrong sort of look or the tone of your voice can make them feel shamed or unloved. Punishment over food would be a big no-no IMO. Since I don't know you or your situation fully, I don't know if any of this applies or not, but this is something to be aware of and watch for in your own behavior or even your spouse or anybody who is around the kids for that matter.

FWIW.
 
Rx said:
"Dear momy and Dady. For valintines day I want a cacke. but not just any cacke. I dont want a discusting horrid Gluten free cacke."

Ha! Apparently I not only need to work on a good recipe but spelling with her as well! :lol:

Needless to say our adventure in gluten free baking hasn't yielded much success. I've had luck with cookies and brownies but at least 10 different gluten free bread recipes have literally flopped-we've just been suffering without it. I'll mention now that my ego took quite a beating through it all since I'm a trained cook and can easily bake evil wheat bread from scratch- :huh:

Hey Rx,

I can relate to what you're saying here. My transition to a gluten-free diet took a period of 6 months, so my kids had time to slowly adjust to the new foods and tastes. Did you switch baking methods overnight or was a gradual process for you?

What g/f bread recipes did you try? I've had some success with these, although I've only made a few. I could certainly help you out with this and I'm sure there are many others on this forum that could help too. Just post under the thread where you found the recipe and we'll try to help.

Don't feel bad about not being able to bake g/f even being a trained cook. Our culture is practically built around wheat and I think most experts in "traditional" baking methods would have a hard time with g/f baking. I've had many flops myself. One thing I've noticed that helps is to keep a baking log.
 
Rx said:
"Dear momy and Dady. For valintines day I want a cacke. but not just any cacke. I dont want a discusting horrid Gluten free cacke."
Ha! Apparently I not only need to work on a good recipe but spelling with her as well! :lol:

may I suggest a gluten-free everything-free chocolate cake mix from Cherrybrook kitchen, or a brownie mix from Bob's Red Mill (that one calls for eggs but I make it with egg replacer instead and it's even better). They both are a bit pricey but wonderful for a special occasion. Nobody will every be able to tell that it's gluten-free!
 
Back
Top Bottom