Hayden McMullin

English 1010
Allison Fernley
May 5, 2014
Milk, the Secret Killer?
I remember it vividly. It was the summer of 2009 and I was sitting in the grass in Prince
Edward Island on the eastern coast of Canada. At that time, I was part of a rugby team
representing the province of British Columbia at the 2009 Canada Summer Games. The Canada
Summer Games is a sporting event based on creating an Olympic experience for the best youth
athletes in the country. So there I was, exhausted after a gruelling game in the hot August sun,
my energy depleted. Almost immediately, the team manager and head trainer came onto the
field, sporting multiple gallons of chocolate milk and paper cups to go along with them. If you
could imagine a pack of lions swarming to devour a gazelle, that was the team swarming to
chocolate milk. There was no thought as to whether the milk was harmful to our bodies, we were
just in dire need of something to put into our bodies. Plus, we had been taught from a young age
both by parents and the media that milk is beneficial to human health. Of recent years however,
there has been what feels like a much stronger push towards health and what makes humans
healthier or on the flip side, unhealthier. Is milk on the healthier or unhealthier side of the coin?
Health care professionals from all over the world have their opinions on the argument.
At that time in my life, I was not concerned with the health problems that consuming
milk could cause. Now however, any possible dietary detriment should be avoided in my adult
years. While growing up, it was almost ground into my mind that milk is what you drink in the
morning with breakfast and with freshly baked chocolate chip cookies. Milk, which is produced
by pregnant cows to nourish their calves, must be packed with nutrients. It has to be. The biggest
argument for the pro-milk side is that its nutrition content is highly beneficial for human life,
from production to sustainment. Strong arguments from the opposing side state that drinking
milk is a cause of serious health issues, such as osteoporosis and heart disease. So with that in
mind, got milk?
Think about what you put in your Wheaties this morning. Did you pour in the white milk
that came out of your fridge? Or maybe you spiced up the morning with some delicious
chocolate milk. Did you even think about what you were putting into your bowl of Cheerios?
Probably not. From a young age, even infancy, we are taught that milk is an acceptable drink.
Maybe even more important that water. Where does this influence start?
You probably dont remember, but at one point in your life, you were a little baby. Not
the cute little toddler that everyone thinks about, but a newborn baby, totally dependent on your
mother and your father. Your day consisted of what babies do best, eat, sleep and poop and
repeat the cycle. At that point in your life, there was really only one thing that was growing you
bigger and stronger, your mommys milk. Every mammal in the world survives this way, the
breast milk of their mother. Its just how genetics works. But as you grew older, you developed
teeth and mom said it was time to start eating solid food. No biggie, we can still get the milk
from the cow. What separates humans from the rest of the animal world? First off, we have a
superior brain that allows us to think and communicate on a higher plane. On a much smaller
level, however, we are the only mammal that, when the weaning process is over, moves to the
milk of another mammal! Have you ever thought about that before? Think about a young calf, it
drinks its mothers milk. What does it drink when it has grown old enough? Water! Crazy! Why
has our society become so dependent on milk?
One of the biggest strategies of the pro-milk team is lobbying that milk is crucial to
healthy bone development. A recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition analyzed the correlation between avoiding cow milk and poor bone health, in
prepubescent children. Stated in their findings, they, identified major problems in bone health,
which many members of the public had no clue about (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
2002). One of the biggest problems cited was bone size, with the bones of the milk avoiders
being on the small side.
Among the most crucial vitamins or minerals necessary for healthy bones is calcium,
which milk is known for. The new 'My Plate' established by the federal government, which
replaces the old food pyramid, suggests that a healthy adult male or female needs 3 servings of
milk or dairy products per day. They also recommend that you switch to a low-fat or fat free
options to help avoid eating the fats, that count towards your 'empty calories' budget on a daily
basis. On every page of the dairy subsection, the 'Key Consumer Message' is "Switch to fat-free
or low-fat (1%) milk (USDA).
Switching to a fat-free or a low-fat milk might not be the best idea though. As has been
found in many studies, fat does not make you fat, sugar makes you fat. Mark Hyman is a
practicing physician, is a New York Times bestselling author and also writes articles for the
Huffington Post. In his article titled Got Proof? Lack of Evidence for Milk's Benefits, he
analyzes the majority of the facts about milk. One of his strongest arguments is that fat does not
actually make you fat, the sugar is the culprit. Hyman criticizes the healthier option being
advertised today. The push is for the low-fat flavored milk drinks to replace the soda pop that has
been stocking the shelves of vending machines for decades. I did my own research comparing
the options. I found that average 12 oz. can of soda pop has about 40 grams of sugars in it. The
healthier milk option still has the same amount of sugar as the soda pop. Even 100% fruit juice
has close to the same amount of sugar as the soda or flavored milk. An unflavored milk,
however, has about one third of the sugar as the other options, which would land it as the
healthiest option if water didnt exist.
Comparatively, the full fat, low-fat, and non-fat options of milk all share the same
amount of sugar, but like the name points out, the fat content is different. The people who choose
the fat free options instead of the full fat options, are left feeling unsatisfied by their food and
then seek out something to satisfy that inner craving. Fat helps in satisfying the appetite. Being
unsatisfied and seeking more food is only going to end up in eating more calories than already
consumed. If the major claim to the low fat and fat free versions of food are to save you calories
and you are going to end up eating more calories than you planned on, why not just eat the full
fat stuff in the first place. Studies have shown that eating a higher fat diet is actually healthier
than eating a low fat diet. Like mentioned earlier, fat doesnt make you fat.
Here is the part where you might battle the fat argument with a well shouldnt you stay
away from fat and cholesterol? which is a valid concern. The bad cholesterol, or LDL, does go
down when you are leaving out the fats. Hyman argues however that the saturated fat actually
increases the good cholesterol or HLD, which gives it an overall better ratio of good to bad,
which is the most important marker of your risk of heart disease (Hyman). A 12 year study of
53,544 adults was done to analyze the effects of saturated fat in regards to heart disease. The
study found that replacing the saturated fat with carbohydrates, which a lot of Americans end up
doing, actually increased the risk of heart attack. Basically, choose the low-fat chocolate milk in
your vending machine, you will drink the whole thing (which surprisingly enough is 42 grams of
sugar), feel unsatisfied because of the lack of fat, decide to go for that Krispy Kreme (which I do
love) and severely increase your risk of a heart attack. When it is put that way, it doesnt sound
like the smartest choice. All those consequences from a simple decision of what to drink.
Milk might not be all that bad though. In a study done in Great Britain, a research team is
experimenting with a type of milk to help prevent lung damage from pollution. The British
Olympic Committee is testing bovine colostrum to see if it can help athletes lungs from the poor
air quality they will face at the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Bovine colostrum is
the milk that is produced in the first 48 hours after a cow has given birth. This super milk is
packed full of essential vitamins and minerals that are critical to keeping a newborn calf alive.
The study gives the athlete 20g of the milk (which is about 20ml) and tracks their lung
inflammation and overall recovery time. Dr. Elisa Gomes, who is the head of the research team
hopes to see if the milk could, possibly protect the lungs of people who work in polluted
environments (Spencer). While I was not able to find a published report on the testing, just the
idea that milk is being thought of as preventative measure to modern problems lends an arm of
hope to the milk side.
Both sides of the argument have many other various claims for what milk does or does
not do. From the causing cancer argument (on the opposing milk side) to the prevention of
metabolic diseases (on the pro milk side), there are about as many claims as fingers and toes on
your person. I think that it comes down to a personal decision, either you do or do not drink. I
think milk should definitely be a healthy part of a child's diet, especially in cases where a child is
a usually picky eater. This could be a way to ensure the child is getting the right amount of
nutrients. In adults however, I do not see the need for milk consumption. There are many
different ways for an adult to gain the calcium and fat that milk would provide. In the case that
the additional milk will contribute to a daily increase in the amount of sugar consumed, it could
be completely avoided. I am no doctor or nutrition specialist and am limited to the knowledge
provided by others, but I believe that the benefits of drinking milk do not outweigh the potential
risks. Its your body and your choice. Got milk?

References
"Health Concerns about Dairy Products." n.d. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
29 March 2014.
Hope, Jenny. "Drinking a pint of milk a day keeps your heart healthy." Daily Mail 12 July 2007:
29. Regional Business News. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
Hyman, Mark. "Got proof? Lack of evidence for milk's benefits." 11 July 2013. Huffington Post.
29 March 2014.
Black, Ruth E, et al. "Children who avoid drinking cow milk have low dietary calcium intakes
and poor bone health." September 2002. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 29
March 2014.
Spencer, Ben. "Gold top! Athletes to get a super-milk." Daily Mail (2011).
Spock, Benjamin. "Good nutrition for kids." 1998. Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine. 29 March 2014.
USDA, United States Department of Agriculture. ChooseMyPlate.org. 5 May 2014.



Reflection:
1. Describe the feedback you got on your presentation and on your rough draft during peer
review. Give specific details.
1. The feedback from Jacob Whitlow was very precise and accurate. He gave me very good
advice on what he thought I could do to improve my paper. I think the most helpful advice he
gave was providing specific details about how milk is a detriment to health. This feedback was a
million times better than the feedback that I received on my last peer review.
2. How did you revise your paper to make it more appealing and persuasive to our class as your
audience? Give details, especially pointing out where in the paper we can see the fruits of your
revision labor.
I revised the paper in many ways, the first and foremost was organizing the paper from the rough
draft form to the final draft. Initially my rough draft was the bare skeleton written in the free
flowing brain waves that came. With much editing it has turned out like this. The final paragraph
was added in this process, as well as the paragraph between the fourth and fifth page. I think that
my final paper is stronger with the addition of quotes and ideas taken from various sources. The
addition of the other views increases the validity of my own views.
3. How well do you think you have met the criteria for this paper? Give me details and point to
places where I can see you meeting the criteria
3. I think that I met the criteria very well. I thoroughly enjoyed writing the piece and arguing
both sides of the fence. I think I framed my quotes very well, from the buildup of the quote to the
bringing it back down to the writing. I did not just summarize different articles and tie them
together with loose string. I feel like I was narrating my own point of view with additions quoted
and un-quoted throughout the piece.