Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Got Milk PMS commercials – the murky truth

"Got Milk" is the name of an advertising campaign referred to as a 'milk consumption campaign'. It is sponsored by the milk industry. Got Milk came out of the Californian Milk Process Board in 1993. It was created to increase milk consumption in the region and has now grown into an international programme.

In March 2004 the Got Milk campaign was launched in the United Kingdom. In the UK like the US, milk consumption has suffered at the hands of the increase in soda drinks. The move into the UK and other countries is an attempt to reverse the process.

Typically, the ‘got milk’ ads show celebrities with a "milk moustache" and exhort you to drink milk to ensure good health. With promises of strong bones, lower blood pressure, and better sports performance, these milk moustache ads are everywhere, providing millions of people with what unfortunately has become a primary source of nutrition information.

But instead of helping, these ads are confusing and miss-educating consumers according to the PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, USA).

Some Got Milk commercials make reference to PMS in women, implying that the consumption of dairy milk is somehow helpful in alleviating Pre-Menstrual Symptoms. This is, of course, complete nonsense. If anything, dairy milk makes you feel bloated and less healthy and can therefore aggravate PMS.

The Got Milk PMS commercials were prompted by a study carried out by Dr. Elizabeth Bertone-Johnson of the University of Massachusetts and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. This study showed a "significantly lower risk of developing PMS in women with intakes of vitamin D and calcium from food sources.”

But it does not follow that dairy milk is a good source of vitamin D and calcium. On the contrary, milk is a bad source of these nutrients, and there is no research showing that milk alleviates PMS.

Most of the milk moustache ads that make health claims are false and misleading, and in violation of federal advertising guidelines, according to a PCRM petition filed with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in July 2000.

In its petition, PCRM requested an investigation of milk moustache ads, holding them to be scientifically unsubstantiated, purposefully deceptive, and harmful advertising. PCRM's petition has been referred by the FTC to the USDA for investigation because—believe it or not—it is actually the USDA that is promulgating these ads on behalf of the private dairy industry.

To find out more about this subject please go to Got Milk PMS Commercials. Here you will also discover a sensational report showing that organic dairy milk is much worse for health compared to regular pasteurized milk. Also check out http://www.about-milk.info/ for other fascinating facts.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Organic milk less healthy than regular milk

It is generally accepted that organic food is, at the very least, not worse than nonorganic food. But when it comes to dairy milk it’s another matter. A new book reveals dramatic evidence showing that organic milk is significantly unhealthier than regular pasteurized milk.

This may come as a shock to many people and families who pay extra money for organic milk in the belief that it is better than regular milk. Sometimes the extra cost of organic milk can be nearly double the price of regular milk.

But how is it possible that organic pasteurized milk sold in supermarkets is actually worse for health than the equivalent nonorganic variety? One may argue that organic milk may not be much better than regular milk. But it’s quite another matter to say that organic milk is actually much worse for you than regular milk.

Yet all the latest evidence is showing precisely this. Furthermore, UHT milk (Long Life milk) is shown to be even worse for health than organic milk. Astoundingly, about 80% of organic milk sold in the world today is UHT milk.

In some countries, such as Spain, Belgium, and France over 95% of all milk sales are UHT. In other countries, sales of UHT are growing fast, ranging from 15% to 95%. The milk industry likes this because the longer shelf life of UHT makes the supply chain from cow to consumer more economical. This also has government support – there is a worldwide trend to switch up to 90% of all milk over to UHT by 2020 in the belief that this is better for the environment (less refrigeration means lower global warming emissions).

According to a study by Prof. Rusty Bishop, University of Wisconsin, even in countries such as the USA and Canada, where UHT sales are less than half of all milk sales, “over 80% of organic milk is sold as organic UHT milk.”

UHT milk (both organic and nonorganic) is significantly worse for health for a variety of reasons. It is known, for example, that UHT is much higher in damaged whey proteins compared to regular milk – this in turn is a major cause of brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's disease. There is no shortage of evidence to support this.

In a study published in January 2007 in the American Journal of Epidemiology a clear link was found between Parkinson’s Disease and milk. The diets of over 130,000 people were analysed and it was found that those who consumed the most cow’s milk had a massive 70 percent higher risk of getting the disease.

But why is organic milk worse than regular milk? Isn’t organic milk meant to have less pesticide residues and no antibiotics? Isn’t organic milk meant to be better for the environment and kinder to cows? When the evidence is examined, an astonishing picture emerges. Organic milk has no less pesticides and antibiotics than regular milk. Furthermore, the vast majority of organic cows (in the world generally) are treated no better than nonorganic cows. They are kept in confined spaces in cow sheds most of their lives, and the belief that organic cows are allowed out to pasture most of the time is very much a myth.

When it comes to the environment, the latest research is clearly showing that organic milk is significantly worse for the environment in terms of energy consumption and global warming emissions. This is so because the supply chain for organic milk requires greater energy expenditure (pint for pint) in terms of transportation, warehousing and distribution. Organic milk, which is mostly produced by smaller farms, simply cannot match the economies of scale that apply to regular pasteurized milk.

To find out why organic milk and UHT milk are so much worse for health (compared to regular milk) see Organic Milk Myth. Other resources can be found at http://www.about-milk.info/.