prostate cancer

Bacteria-contaminated milk kills 3 people

I don't like to use a tragedy to make my point, but something awful happened in New England recently that I have to point out. Apparently, bacteria-contaminated milk caused one miscarriage and the deaths of three elderly men. The killer milk came from the widely respected Whittier Farms Dairy, which has a herd of hormone-free cows, and uses glass bottles for their milk.

It would fit the FDA's story line perfectly if these awful events were caused by the consumption of raw milk. But no - the bacteria-contaminated milk had been pasteurized. This means that pasteurized milk is responsible for more deaths last year than raw milk, yet it's raw milk that's been widely vilified and is on the verge of being legislated out of existence.

The bacteria that's to blame for the deaths is listeria. Anti-raw milk folks are quick to point out that listeria only shows up in pasteurized milk on incredibly rare occasions. What they won't tell you is that listeria is just about as rare in raw milk. What's more, milk isn't the only place you'll find the bacterium - this nasty little bacteria can pop up in almost any uncooked meat or produce. In fact, it can even be found in cold cuts and some cheeses.

The fact is, this is the THIRD listeria outbreak that's been connected to pasteurized milk. Pasteurization is supposed to make foods listeria-free. Obviously, that's not always the case.

How badly do you think Big Dairy would like to sweep this story under the rug? It's incredibly ironic that this has happened to a pasteurizing dairy rather than a raw-milk dairy. This sort of thing is only supposed to happen with raw milk! I'm not sure who this story upsets more - the FDA, the anti-raw-milk lobbyists of Big Dairy, or the poor, organic dairies who are prevented from marketing their raw milk products - which have RARELY been found to have potentially deadly pathogens such as listeria, E. coli, or salmonella.

As you probably already know, I'm a huge raw milk advocate. It's chock-full of calcium, vitamin D, lactoferrins (natural antibiotics, and other good stuff). I've written on more than one occasion of the struggles of both the consumers and producers of raw-milk, and how overzealous FDA regulation of the product is driving raw-milk fans underground.

It's my hope that raw-milk dairies and lobbies can use this incident to point out that their product is just as safe (if not safer) than pasteurized milk and get the FDA and state regulators to ease up on the incredibly restrictive raw-milk laws.

I know I won't hold my breath.

Nonfat milk linked to prostate cancer

A new study in the American Journal of Epidemiology has found that there may be a link between the consumption of non-fat or low-fat milk and an increased risk of prostate cancer. This report runs counter to the idea that it was the vitamin D and calcium in milk that led to an increase in prostate malignancies.

In the study's overall analysis of food groups, the consumption of dairy products and milk were not associated with prostate cancer risk. Further analysis, however, suggested that low-fat or nonfat milk did increase the risk of localized tumors or non-aggressive tumors, while whole milk decreased this risk.

As always, there's an essential irony here: The study found that whole milk - the kind with all the fat that everyone's always telling you to stay away from? - actually DECREASED the risk of prostate cancer. Like I always say: If you hang around medicine long enough, nearly every old belief eventually gets turned on its head.

Health hazards in your water bottle

It's a darn good thing your body doesn't need those eight glasses of water a day- because it's becoming harder and harder to drink the stuff without filling up on some other cancer-causing, heart-stopping toxin. Tap water is bad enough, and I know you've already heard about the negative effects of soft plastic bottles.

But those who have shelled out big bucks for "environmentally friendly" hard plastic bottles are no better off. That's because those bottles are made from polycarbonates that often include a chemical called bisphenol A or "BPA," and research indicates it could have hormone-mimicking properties.

There was a time when these bottles were considered an environmentally responsible alternative to disposable water bottles. Ironically, it's now the environmentalists who are pushing to do away with the bottles. In many places, the bottles are even being pulled off store shelves. At least someone out there is taking action. The FDA certainly isn't.

Even after a panel of 38 researchers blasted BPA at a government-sponsored conference, the FDA refused to say "Uncle," - instead, claiming that "there has been no evidence that BPA is harmful to humans."

Um no evidence? The panel reviewed OVER 700 PUBLISHED ARTICLES on BPA's effect on human health, and they cited numerous animal studies showing that even low doses could lead to breast and prostate cancer, obesity and hyperactivity, and reproductive problems such as infertility and miscarriage. Apparently, Americans have higher levels of BPA in their systems than those levels found to harm lab animals so what's the FDA waiting for?

I think I know

Fred vom Saal was one of the chief authors of the government-funded study on BPA. He accused U.S. health and environmental regulators of "pretending they're still in the dark." That's a fairly damning statement from a man who's just been paid by the government he's accusing.

Maybe if Fred had waved a wad of cash in front of their faces, it would have made a difference. You know it's no coincidence that the FDA throwing its weight behind BPA-because you know who's behind BPA: the politically powerful and ultra-rich lobby of the plastics industry.

Just what kind of money are we talking about here? I'll tell youNalge Nuc International (one of the most popular makers of the hard plastics) has annual sales of nearly $65 million. But it doesn't just end at water bottles. Over six million pounds of BPA is produced nearly every year in the U.S. alone, and the material is found in hundreds of products including dental sealants, food can liners, CDs and DVDs, eyeglasses, and other every-day goods.

With so much cash at stake, the FDA likely believes that until they hear a burning bush telling them about the evils of BPA, "more conclusive tests" will likely be needed.

In the meantime, take it from me: If you're determined to tote your water around with you, get yourself a steel or glass container. And toss all your polycarbonate products into the trash - right on top of your faith in the FDA.