Normally, the mother of all consumer safety organizations
exists to protect the health interests of consumers.
These watchdogs of society rigorously test and analyze
consumer products and report unbiased results to their
The September, 2001 issue of Consumer Reports focused its
usually unbiased eye upon the milk controversy. Instead of
using a clear 20/20-style analysis of real science, Consumer
Reports revealed that their editors and writers are
astigmatic mono-chromatic deuteranopes.
In other words, they see fuzzy, their vision is clearly out-
of-focus, and they're color blind.
Original CU article
In their biased milk analysis, they compromised their
standards, sacrificed their integrity, and, in doing so,
betrayed all consumers by ignoring the real scientific
Their review of milk consumption began with this question,
aimed at critics:
Such a question should have been aimed at the National Fluid
Milk Producers (NFMP) who continue to make outlandish
claims, not the critics.
Study after study, point after point, comment after comment,
the Consumer Reports reviewers blindly accepted dairy
industry propaganda published by the non-scientists at the
dairy industry's public relations firm, BSMG.
They reviewed press releases and milk mustache ads and
criticized the milk critics.
Consumers Reports reLIEd upon a study by Robert Heaney,
M.D., to assess milk's bone-strengthening effects.
They ignored the fact that Dr. Heaney works for the dairy
They cited the Harvard Nurse study, (78,000 participants),
but selectively omitted a key observation of that study:
Women who drank milk and ate cheese as teenagers developed
higher rates of pelvic and forearm fractures as adults.
Consumer Reports recommends that one eats 1000 milligrams
per day of calcium, ignoring the fact that Eskimos eat 3500
milligrams per day and by age 40, most become crippled with
Consumer Reports did not explore how animal protein creates
an acid condition in the blood, which causes calcium bone
The Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported that dietary
protein increases production of acid in the blood which can
be neutralized by calcium mobilized from the skeleton. That
reference and many others represent real science that the
staff of biased Consumer Reports researchers neglected to
Consumer Reports utilized every bit of phony non-science-
based marketing published by the dairy industry to reinforce
Consumer Reports claims that milk is good for the heart,
ignoring every bit of commonly held wisdom teaching that
saturated animal fat and cholesterol do not do the
cardiovascular system any good.
Heart researchers found that animal food groups were
directly correlated to mortality from coronary heart disease
(CHD), defined as sudden coronary death or fatal myocardial
infarction, and vegetable food groups were inversely
correlated with CHD mortality. Analysis showed significant
positive correlation coefficients for butter (R = 0.887),
meat (R = 0.645), pastries (R = 0.752), and milk (R = 0.600)
consumption, and significant negative correlation
coefficients for legumes (R = -0.822), oils (R = -0.571),
and alcohol (R = -0.609) consumption.
That study and additional real science that Consumers
ignores is cited:
When it comes to cancer, Consumer Reports completely ignores
the advice of their own senior researcher, Michael Hansen,
Ph.D. Dr. Hansen recognizes that milk contains insulin-like
growth factor-I (IGF-I), the key to cancer.
I've lectured with Hansen and respect his work.
There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in
nature, and only one hormone that is identical between any
two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like
growth factor, or IGF-I. IGF-I survives digestion and has
been identified as the key factor in breast cancer's growth.
IGF-I is identical in human and cow. If you believe that
breast feeding works to protect lactoferrins and
immunoglobulins from digestion (and benefit the nursing
infant), you must also recognize that milk is a hormonal
delivery system. By drinking cow's milk, one delivers IGF-I
in a bioactive form to the body's cells. When IGF-I from
cow's milk alights upon an existing cancer, it's like
pouring gasoline on a fire.
IGF-I plays a major role in human breast cancer cell growth.
Consumer Reports contradicts their own expert by not even
considering the following critically important evidence
regarding breast cancer:
Scientists have found that the IGF-I system is widely
involved in human carcinogenesis. A significant association
between high circulating IGF-I concentrations and an
increased risk of lung, colon, prostate and pre-menopausal
breast cancer has recently been reported.
More science that Consumer Reports never accessed:
As for lactose intolerance, Consumer Reports promotes the
antidote, lactase, while ignoring the real problems.
The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology reported that
lactose malabsorption is a chronic organic pathologic
condition characterized by abdominal pain and distention,
flatulence, and the passage of loose, watery stools.
Researchers noted that the introduction of a lactose-free
dietary regime relieves symptoms in most patients...who
remain largely unaware of the relationship between food
intake and symptoms.
The above study and many others regarding lactose
consumption are cited here:
Consumer Reports explored whether milk is safe for kids.
They ignore the advice of the most respected pediatrician in
American history, Dr. Benjamin Spock, who said that no human
child should ever drink cow's milk.
They ignored the advice of Dr. Frank Oski, once Chief of
Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins, who advised all people to not
drink milk or eat dairy products. Oski wrote that at least
50% of all children in the United States are allergic to
milk, many undiagnosed. Oski believed that dairy products
are the leading cause of food allergy, often revealed by
constipation, diarrhea, and fatigue. Dr. Oski found that
many cases of asthma and sinus infections are eliminated by
cutting out dairy.
More real science regarding juvenile illness that Consumer
Consumer Reports has a clear agenda. They wish to preserve
their subscriber base. People hearing that milk is unhealthy
usually respond by attacking the messenger.
Consumer Reports could have performed a public service by
fairly reviewing the milk controversy.
After all, the average American consumes 29.2 ounces of milk
and dairy products per day. That's 666 pounds of milk per
individual. I enjoy the significance and symbolism of that
number, 666. That's the sign of something evil.
Consumer Reports gets this consumer's lowest rating for
their gutless, biased, unscientific analyses of milk and
dairy products. They've compromised all that they once stood
for and have earned my complete distaste and lack of respect
for what they now represent.
Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of these milk-related problems? Do them a huge favor and forward the URL or this entire file to them.
Do you know of someone who should read these newsletters? If so, have them send an empty Email to email@example.com and they will receive it (automatically)!