The Evils Of Milk?

By Michael Lemonick

Got milk? Be very afraid. Or, preferably, a bit skeptical. Some folks are about to try to convince you that milk is toxic. But the real question is, What's more dangerous to your health: milk, or celebrities and activists embarked on the latest trendy crusade? This week marks the publicity-pumped debut of the AntiDairy Coalition, a band of physicians, self-described "Hollywood personalities" and others who decry what they call "the health and nutritional risks of consuming dairy products."

The coalition, including its spokes-Jeremiah, George Plimpton, would have you believe that milk causes heart disease, cancer, infections, asthma, allergies and tuberculosis. Robert Cohen, founder of the ADC (and author of Milk: The Deadly Poison), writes: "The Fountain of Youth and cure to illness can be obtained by giving up milk."

Hyperbole aside, the ADC is spotlighting a question hotly debated by everyone from nutritionists to parents. Many patients ask doctors whether they should give up milk, like that supermodel they saw interviewed on TV. And to be sure, the ADC's overwrought claims do have some scientific basis.

Take heart disease. Foods like butter, cheese, ice cream and whole milk are packed with saturated fat, which clogs arteries and can lead to heart attacks. That's why most nutritionists advise switching to low-fat or skim milk and eating more yogurt and cottage cheese than Haagen-Dazs and Brie. Even skim milk, though, can trigger allergies in some people, including infants, who in any case will get more iron and other key nutrients from breast milk or formula.

So must you flee from milk entirely? Yes, says Cohen, who holds that skim milk is the devil's brew. It's full of--are you sitting down?--protein. And here's where the ADC starts twisting the facts to reach wild conclusions. Allergies are frequently triggered by proteins (true); asthma is an allergic condition (true); it's been increasing draatically (true); doctors don't know the cause (true); therefore, the protein in milk must be the culprit (huh?).

A similar leap of illogic assumes that because women in the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden consume lots of milk and also suffer high rates of breast cancer, the former must cause the latter. Another clunker is Cohen's claim that widespread lactose intolerance--the inability to digest dairy products--means milk is of little use as a source of calcium. In fact, many cases of lactose intolerance are mild and interfere only slightly with calcium uptake. Many people intolerant of milk can easily digest yogurt. And lactase tablets can make dairy products digestible even in severe cases.

If milk isn't the perfect food, it's still got some big things going for it. It's an inexpensive source of calcium, protein, potassium and other vitamins and minerals. And unlike other sources of calcium, such as, say, steamed kale, milk is a food kids will eat. The ADC feels that milk is the root of most human maladies, but I can point to other single-issue obsessives who insist the villain is meat or wheat or sugar or some other substance that our species has long and happily consumed. I often learn something by examining their claims. But I keep coming back to the mainstream nutritionists, who emphasize a balanced diet and advise moderation in all things.

Check time.com to read more on the great milk debate. Our regular health columnist, Christine Gorman, is on vacation