Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SFVeg] soy article from Sunday's Chronicle

Expand Messages
  • Sam Halsey
    Dear Karen, There is a good article in one of Dr Mcdougall s Newletters entitled Soy – Food, Wonder Drug, or Poison? (see link below):
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 14, 2006
      Dear Karen,

      There is a good article in one of Dr Mcdougall's Newletters entitled
      "Soy � Food, Wonder Drug, or Poison?"(see link below):


      In general it is best to stick to whole foods, like the soy bean,
      rather than processed soy stuff ie. fake foods.
      I especially like the chart showing the fat and protien content, with
      the heading:
      Soybeans Are Nutritionally between a Bean and a Nut



      On Aug 14, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Karen wrote:

      > Anyone have thoughts or comments on this piece from the Sunday
      > Chronicle magazine? I am VERY confused about how to feel about soy;
      > generally I try to eat in moderation but it's tough when it's used so
      > prevalently as a filler/protein source. Karen
      > Too Much of a Good Thing?
      > Controversy rages over the world's most regaled legume
      > - James Nestor
      > Sunday, August 13, 2006
      > It lurks in your cupboards, your cereal, bread, pasta and chips. It's
      > in your refrigerator, in your cheese, condiments, yogurt, sausages,
      > ice cream. It's in those M&M's by the desk, probably in the latte
      > you're drinking right now.
      > It's soy, and it's now in almost every single processed food we buy
      > at supermarkets and health food stores. As America's favorite "health
      > food," it promises to make us skinny and lower our cholesterol,
      > prevent cancer and reduce menopausal symptoms, put us in a better
      > mood, give us energy. It's the cheap and guilt-free source of protein
      > for millions of vegetarians, the "heart smart" option for carnivores,
      > the infant formula du jour for eco-minded moms. Soy has become one of
      > the America's biggest industries.
      > And it may be making us sicker than we've ever been. Or so alleges
      > Kaayla Daniel, author of "The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of
      > America's Favorite Health Food," an anti-soy treatise released in
      > 2005 by New Trends Publishing.
      > "People are just starting to wake up to this, to just how serious
      > this all is," says Daniel, who earned her doctorate at the Union
      > Institute and works as a certified nutritionist. "So far, if you look
      > at the studies, you'll start to see that there are only possible
      > benefits of this food, and proven dangers."
      > For Daniel, the problem exists in the soybean itself, a legume that
      > by nature is chock full of antinutrients and toxins to ward off
      > predators. If eaten in small amounts (say, a few tablespoons every
      > couple of days) these toxins pose no real harm. The trouble occurs
      > when we consume more than 35 grams of soy a day -- a quantity Daniel
      > argues is easily reachable in our modern diet so crammed with soy
      > meats, soy extenders, soy protein and soy emulsifiers, substances so
      > full of estrogens, metals, sugars and additives, so "toxic," that
      > they are posing considerable risks to our collective physical and
      > mental health.
      > It's an extreme accusation, one that fits easily in the sidebars of
      > alternative medicine weeklies or alarmist blogs of health nuts. (You
      > can just see them wagging an "I told you so" finger as they smugly
      > eat homegrown wheat bulgur from a worn wooden bowl.) But lately it's
      > not just Daniel and off-the-grid hippies spouting the rues of soy --
      > governments have piped in. The French Center for Cancer Research has
      > stated that soy products in no amount should be eaten by children
      > under 3 years of age or women with or at risk of breast cancer. The
      > Israeli Health Ministry issued a public warning on soy, claiming that
      > consumption of soy be limited in young children and avoided, if
      > possible, in infants. The American Heart Association has backtracked
      > on its endorsement of soy.
      > Is this the beginning of the end of the "soy revolution?"
      > History of the "Wonder Bean"
      > The Chinese have prized the soybean for thousands of years as a
      > fertilizer, a "green manure," but it wasn't until they learned to
      > ferment it around 500 B.C. that they considered it suitable for human
      > consumption. Fermenting the bean into foods like miso, tempeh and
      > natto removed toxins and phytic acid (which can interfere with the
      > absorption of minerals) and made soy more easily digestible -- all
      > benefits that ordinary cooking could not accomplish.
      > These "traditional" fermented soy foods, along with (unfermented)
      > tofu, spread throughout Asia and still constitute about 90 percent of
      > the soybeans consumed in Asia today.
      > Soy's first major U.S. advocate was John Harvey Kellogg, the cereal
      > tycoon, who saw the bean as a path to health, and incorporated it
      > into cereals and meat substitutes. Soon, Henry Ford, the auto tycoon,
      > latched on, believing soy would be the industrial material of the
      > future, molded into everything from car bodies to window frames,
      > steering wheels to refrigerators. By 1933, Ford had spent $1.2
      > million on soy research, built a car trunk of soy and was sporting
      > stylish (though itchy) soybean fiber suits. Though his enthusiasm for
      > the bean made good fodder for the press and furthered his public
      > image as a complete kook, it did little to ignite the public's
      > interest.
      > It wasn't until after the 1940s that soy would truly define itself in
      > the U.S. diet and economy. As soybean oil production ramped up after
      > World War II, so did the mounds of soy "waste" left over from the oil
      > extraction process. Though most of this waste soy meal was used for
      > animal feed, some of it made inroads into the human food chain in the
      > form of cheap soy protein isolate, textured vegetable protein and soy
      > flour, which commercial food producers started using as a
      > cheap "extender" in everything from canned tuna to ravioli.
      > For American industry, the age-old Asian method of using the whole
      > soybean and fermenting it to remove its toxins took too long and the
      > end product was often dull and tasteless. To speedily process
      > soy "waste" into soy protein products, U.S. soy producers washed
      > beans with alkaline, heated and pressure-cooked them, combatting
      > their naturally bitter taste with sugar and infusing them with
      > additives to prevent spoiling. This process greatly improved flavor
      > but removed many of the beneficial nutrients. Daniel argues that it
      > also left in, and introduced, many harmful toxins.
      > Soy products exploded in popularity after the FDA approved the health
      > claim in November 1999 that allows food processors to label many soy
      > products with the phrase: "Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol
      > that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of
      > heart disease." No longer the cheap filler, the dirty word buried in
      > the fine print of ingredients, soy soon became a cover star, a
      > selling point for the health-minded and cost-minded alike. Soon,
      > markets were flooded with a gaggle of new-fangled soy-based products:
      > soy pastas, soy energy bars, soy breads, soy pretzels and on and on.
      > While upscale consumers were now buying soy products at a premium,
      > the general population was consuming even more cheap hydrogenated soy
      > oil in the form of processed foods without even knowing it.
      > By 2004, 80 percent of all vegetable oils would come from soybeans,
      > and almost every single processed food would contain soy. In that
      > year also, U.S. soy farmers produced their biggest soy crop to date --
      > 85 million metric tons grown on more than 46,000 square miles of
      > farmland (imagine an area the size of West Virginia -- then double
      > it). Soy is now one of the fastest growing sectors in the food
      > industry, with retail sales growing from $853 million in 1992 to more
      > than $4 billion in 2004.
      > Health: Can Soy Help or Hurt?
      > With the glut of soy products hitting the shelves of supermarkets, a
      > glut of soy diet books took over the shelves of the bookstore. The
      > most famous, "The Soy Zone," published in 2000 by Zone Diet author
      > Barry Sears, boasts his soy-based diet is the "healthiest diet in the
      > world!" and suggests eating from 50 to 100 grams of soy products a
      > day -- four times the FDA recommended amount.
      > But recently, a number of articles and reports have suggested that
      > the soy health claim may not only be misdirected, it may be
      > completely false. Daniel claims research proves that eating 45 grams
      > a day (about three-quarters of a cup of tofu, for instance) in a
      > month causes changes in the menstrual cycle of women. Eating as
      > little as 35 grams a day (just 10 grams over the FDA recommended
      > amount) has been proven to cause thyroid function suppression within
      > three months in healthy adult men and women.
      > The problem lies in the isoflavones, a "phytoestrogen," and goitrogen
      > (a substance that may cause thyroid enlargement and formation of a
      > goiter) that occur naturally in the soybean. In most soy foods,
      > eating 35 grams of soy means you're also eating 35 milligrams of
      > isoflavones. Some soy foods contain higher isoflavones-per-soy-gram
      > ratios, such as soy milk, which includes only 7 grams of soy protein
      > but a whopping 33 milligrams of isoflavones per 8-ounce serving. With
      > a sip more over this amount, Daniel alleges, you risk proven negative
      > effects on the thyroid. She quotes a controversial letter written by
      > Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan. Doerge and Sheehan, both senior FDA
      > food scientists, wrote to Health and Human Services denouncing the
      > FDA's soy health claim and arguing that many of the thyroid-related
      > problems with isoflavones were being ignored.
      > An extract from the letter reads: "We oppose this health claim
      > because there is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found
      > in soy, including genistein and equol, a metabolite of daidzen,
      > demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the
      > thyroid. This is true for a number of species, including humans ... .
      > Thus, during pregnancy in humans, isoflavones per se could be a risk
      > factor for abnormal brain and reproductive tract development.
      > "Additionally, isoflavones are inhibitors of the thyroid peroxidase
      > which makes T3 [triiodothyronine] and T4 [thyroxine]. Inhibition can
      > be expected to generate thyroid abnormalities, including goiter and
      > autoimmune thyroiditis. There exists a significant body of animal
      > data that demonstrates goitrogenic and even carcinogenic effects of
      > soy products. Moreover, there are significant reports of goitrogenic
      > effects from soy consumption in human infants and adults."
      > Daniel makes the connection that as the consumption of soy foods has
      > steadily increased, so have overall thyroid cancer problems -- more
      > than 42 percent more thyroid cancer incidences have been identified
      > between 1975 and 1996. She cites, among other research, a Japanese
      > study by a leading thyroid clinic in 1991 claiming that isoflavones
      > adversely affect the thyroid's function, and after a long duration
      > have caused thyroid suppression and sometimes thyroid enlargement.
      > In the May-June 2000 issue of FDA Consumer, a publication released by
      > the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, author John Henkel states that
      > animal studies, some of which date back to 1959, link soy isoflavones
      > to possible thyroid disorders such as goiter. A 1997 study in
      > Biochemical Pharmacology identified that genistein and daidzein
      > (isoflavones in soy) may prompt goiter and autoimmune disorders of
      > the thyroid. (Critics suggest that the cause may be due instead to
      > iodine deficiency.)
      > Even bullish soy enthusiast Barry Sears steers clear of isoflavones,
      > claiming that one-third of his soy-heavy diet program should include
      > soy-based meat substitutes, which he claims can be free of
      > isoflavones. He states on his Web site: "I personally feel that once
      > you consume more than 50 mg per day of isoflavones, potential
      > problems may occur in some individuals."
      > Though other environmental harms such as radiation, mercury,
      > chlorine, plastics and pesticides have been implicated in causing
      > thyroid disorders, Daniel argues the research shows that the
      > overconsumption of isoflavones in soy products has significantly
      > contributed to thyroid disorders that, according to Dr. Ridha Arem,
      > clinical professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in
      > Houston, and author of "The Thyroid Solution," are now shared by more
      > than 20 million Americans.
      > "Shame on you for even talking to her!" says Dr. Mark Messina,
      > adjunct professor of nutrition at Loma Linda University in Southern
      > California, and author of the pro-soy book "The Vegetarian Way: Total
      > Health for You and Your Family." "Here is a person with a mail-order
      > Ph.D., without one paper in a peer review publication, trying to
      > promote a book of quasi-science." (Daniel fervently defends her
      > Ph.D., which she received at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, and
      > Union Institute. Though both are accredited universities, the latter
      > is a distance learning-based institution.)
      > "If you want some real perspective," Messina snaps, "look at 70 years
      > of studies, clinical trials, talk to real scientists, look at the
      > thousands of real research trials done on this stuff. It's the
      > thousands of positive trials that never get attention -- only the
      > ones that are different from everything else that the media clings on
      > to."
      > Messina, who also consults for the soy industry, co-authored a recent
      > report on the effect of isoflavones on thyroid function in the 2006
      > issue of the medical journal, Thyroid. In it, he reviewed 14 trials
      > in which the effects of soy foods or isoflavones on at least one
      > measure of thyroid function was assessed in various presumably
      > healthy subjects. With only one exception, either no effects or only
      > very modest changes were noted in these trials. His conclusion:
      > Neither healthy adults nor those with hypothyroid conditions need
      > avoid soy foods. "The points Kaayla is making are based on semi-
      > science," Messina says. "This is a person who mixes citations from
      > patients with scientific data in her book . . . that's just, it's,
      > reprehensible!"
      > But the mounting apprehension about soy within world health
      > organizations is hard to shake. In the January 2006 issue of the
      > journal Circulation, the American Heart Association announced that
      > soy has little effect on cholesterol and is unlikely to prevent heart
      > disease. Before that, in October of 2005, the U.S. Agency for
      > Healthcare Research and Quality reported that most of the research
      > carried out on soy and menopause to date is "inconclusive," of "poor
      > quality" and "too short duration." In October 2005, the Journal of
      > the American Dietetic Association reported that the studies on soy
      > and cancer are inconsistent and that high soy consumption might
      > actually increase breast cancer risk.
      > "You have to understand, we've never said (soy) is some magic
      > bullet," says Nancy Chapman, executive director of the Soyfoods
      > Association of North America, a lobbying leg of the soy
      > industry. "The terminology turnaround is a media description. The
      > advice still at the end of the day is that nobody is saying stop
      > eating soy, nobody is saying soy is unsafe."
      > But that's exactly what the Israeli Health Ministry decreed in July
      > 2005 when they issued a public warning about eating large amounts of
      > soy, notifying day care centers and schools, demanding that they
      > limit soy to no more than one serving per day and no more than three
      > times per week. In March 2005, the French Center for Cancer Research
      > stated that soy products in no amount should be eaten by children
      > under 3 years of age, children treated for hypothyroiditis, women
      > with a history of breast cancer and/or history of familial breast
      > cancer. Soy products in France must now carry warning labels.
      > "Did you talk to the people in Israel? Did you talk to the French?"
      > asks Chapman. "The French had no nutritionist on the panel, they had
      > no panel review, there were no soy experts, it was based on research
      > doing injections of genisteine into the backs of rats . . . studies
      > have shown you can't make conclusions (from animal research) on human
      > subjects -- this is extraordinarily important for people to
      > understand!"
      > Messina also voiced concerns over warnings by Israel and
      > France. "When world health organizations get involved, I admit, that
      > lends an air of legitimacy to this argument, but I still think
      > they've jumped the gun," he says. "The (American) National Institute
      > of Health concluded that isoflavones ... they were of negligible
      > concern, because exposure was so low, they said there was no evidence
      > it was harmful. Consider, too, we're a bigger country here, and the
      > NIH has more scientists than these other countries."
      > The NIH has no official stance on the benefits or risks of soy,
      > saying, "The NIH doesn't make statements, we fund and make research
      > available, then allow that research to speak for itself." What the
      > research says is listed in the August 2005 report, "Effects of Soy on
      > Health Outcomes, an Evidence Report/Technology Assessment by the
      > Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality," an agency under the
      > Department of Health and Human Services. The report looked at the
      > effects of soy on cholesterol, menopause, endocrine function, cancer
      > and tumors and bone health.
      > Three-quarters of the trials used soy supplements; soy foods were
      > used in the remaining trials. Among the soy supplement trials, 57
      > percent used soy protein with isoflavones, 36 percent used
      > isoflavones alone, and 6 percent soy protein without isoflavones.
      > Total isoflavones ranged from 0 mg to 185 mg per day, and the total
      > protein intake from soy ranged from 0 g to 154 g per day.
      > The outcome of all trials was, according to the report, "no
      > conclusive evidence of a dose-response effect for either soy protein
      > or isoflavone. However, for LDL reduction, there is a suggestion of a
      > possible dose-response effect for soy protein."
      > So, the news? There was no news, but there were some interesting side
      > effects. More than 3,000 subjects in 49 studies reported adverse
      > events that were "gastrointestinal in nature." Fifteen studies
      > reported "menstrual complaints." Other "adverse events" including
      > complaints of headache, dizziness and rashes.
      > The report concludes with the generic (though creepy) quasi-
      > disclaimer: "There were a limited number of studies with duration of
      > 1 year or longer; thus the long-term adverse effect of soy in a large
      > population is uncertain."
      > The Soy Infant Formula Dilemma
      > Soy infant formula is currently given to up to 25 percent of bottle-
      > fed infants in the United States, a higher percentage than anywhere
      > in the world. Of the laundry list of dangers pointed out by Daniel
      > based on studies at the University of Irvine and other universities,
      > the manganese levels of soy infant formula are perhaps the most
      > alarming. Soy is naturally high in manganese, which does not pose a
      > problem for children and adults, but raises serious concerns for
      > infants who, with immature livers, cannot process it safely.
      > Per liter, breast milk contains 3 to 10 ug (parts per million) of
      > manganese to soy formula's 200 to 300 ug. Daniel claims newborns
      > exposed to such high level of manganese are vulnerable to "brain
      > damage associated with learning disabilities, attention deficit and
      > other behavioral disorders, and violent tendencies."
      > Soy formula also contains levels of aluminum -- a result of washing
      > the beans in huge aluminum caldrons -- 10 times greater than milk-
      > based formula and 100 times greater than breast milk. High levels of
      > aluminum have been linked to dementia, memory loss, confusion,
      > disorientation, loss of coordination and digestive problems.
      > But worst of all, according to Daniel, soy formulas contain extremely
      > high levels of isoflavones -- the same agent supposedly contributing
      > to thyroid malfunction. As a result, babies fed soy-based formula
      > have 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen compounds in their blood
      > than babies fed milk-based formula -- the estrogenic equivalent of at
      > least five birth control pills per day. It's the extremely high
      > levels of estrogen that Daniel claims could at least be partly
      > responsible for the recent and rampant premature sexual development
      > of girls.
      > Almost 15 percent of white girls and 50 percent of African American
      > girls show signs of puberty such as breast development and pubic hair
      > before age 8. Some girls are showing sexual development before age 3.
      > (Daniel claims that soy formula is heavily targeted to blacks, Asians
      > and American Indians because many infants of these races are presumed
      > lactose intolerant, and thus many of them start on soy formula
      > outright. Most Caucasians start out with a dairy formula but switch
      > to soy if there are any problems.)
      > "The chances that the amount of estrogen in soy formula is going to
      > affect a child later in life, I find that hard to swallow," says Dr.
      > Michelle Barratt, associate professor of pediatrics at University of
      > Texas Medical School. "I like what Kenneth Setchell (professor of
      > pediatrics at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center in Ohio)
      > said about it in the June 2002 issue of Environmental Health
      > Perspectives (a peer-reviewed journal of the United States' National
      > Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)." Barratt reads from the
      > article, "When we've had so many infants raised on soy formula and we
      > haven't really seen these horrendous effects that people keep saying
      > these compounds cause, then there's probably no reason for concern.
      > However, I accept that the lack of evidence is not evidence for the
      > lack of effect."
      > Along with the American Academy of Pediatrics, where she serves on
      > the committee on adolescence, Barratt supports soy formula as a safe
      > and effective alternative for infants -- but not in excess. "I think
      > the bottom line is to use moderation, and whenever possible, I always
      > suggest breast milk as the best formula. But, as far as soy formula
      > causing premature puberty in girls, or delaying puberty in boys, I
      > just don't think that's correct."
      > Spurred by ongoing concerns over soy infant formula, an independent
      > panel of 14 scientists met in March to decide whether soy formula was
      > hazardous to human development. This panel looked at two reports (one
      > on soy infant formula, the other on genistein), which consisted of
      > data from hundreds of studies. Except for one doctor, the panel
      > concluded that soy formula was safe. Dr. Ruth Etzel remained
      > apprehensive, saying soy formula might possibly affect brain and
      > reproductive system development.
      > "I'm not an expert in infant nutrition," says Messina. "But I'm
      > impressed by the fact that over a 40-year period, 20 million infants
      > fed soy formula without case reports in medical literature -- I
      > personally wouldn't have a problem with an infant consuming soy
      > formula."
      > Daniel counters: "Given the facts, and the risk, and there are proven
      > risks, I don't know who would want to take the chance."
      > Whatever Happened to Moderation?
      > How did we ingrain into our collective ethos that if a little of
      > something is good for you, then a lot must be really good for you?
      > The road of excess may lead to the palace of wisdom but there's
      > wisdom in the saying, Everything in moderation. And now we're at
      > nutritional extremes: One-half of us tries to cheat ourselves by
      > doing too much for too long, the other half lazes idly by doing not
      > enough for too little. Critics pick sides to sell books and make
      > headlines. Those in the middle might try to filter the results, but
      > through the constant white noise of bickering the only voices that
      > come through are distorted.
      > What happened to the voices of (unsponsored, un-self-promoting,
      > unaffiliated) reason, of temperance, of moderation?
      > Marion Nestle is the noted author of "Food Politics and What to Eat,"
      > a decidedly moderate voice in the nutrition wars, neither a soy
      > lobbyist nor a detractor. Her unbiased, no-nonsense nutritional
      > advice is trusted by hundreds of thousands of Americans. Can she
      > clear this up?
      > "I think overall the research on soy is really uncompelling," Nestle
      > says. "What the data shows is that if there is harm from soy, it is
      > very small; and if there are benefits, they are also very small. That
      > means the data revolves around zero. And the FDA health claim was on
      > soy ... I think it was way out of line. Foods aren't medicines!"
      > "People don't have to eat soy if they don't want to!" Nestle
      > says. "To figure you have to eat it for any reason makes no sense to
      > me at all -- nobody needs to eat this stuff to be healthy."
      > James Nestor last wrote for the Magazine on surfer "Doc" Rennaker.
      > Page CM - 6
      > URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
      > file=/c/a/2006/08/13/CMGJKK1BP31.DTL
      > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > ----------
      > �2006 San Francisco Chronicle

      sam halsey
      (415) 309-1879

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • yarrow@sfo.com
      ... 35 grams a day? or the 50-100 recommended by huckster/quack Sears? No. That much *protein* per day is far too much, and from one source certainly
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 14, 2006
        On Aug 14, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Karen wrote:
        > Anyone have thoughts or comments on this piece from the Sunday
        > Chronicle magazine? I am VERY confused about how to feel about soy;
        > generally I try to eat in moderation but it's tough when it's used so
        > prevalently as a filler/protein source. Karen

        Sam Halsey <samhalsey@...> wrote:
        >There is a good article in one of Dr Mcdougall's Newletters entitled
        >"Soy – Food, Wonder Drug, or Poison?"(see link below):

        35 grams a day? or the 50-100 recommended by
        huckster/quack Sears? No. That much *protein* per
        day is far too much, and from one source
        certainly excessive.

        I agree with McDougall's position -- use in
        moderation primarily as a whole food. I think one
        of the guidelines is to eat no more than 5-10
        grams of soy protein a day, comparable to what
        Asians eat in tofu-eating countries.

        So if I have soy yogurt in the morning, I don't
        have soy ice cream later in the day. Or I have
        either soy yogurt or soymilk with breakfast, but
        not both. One Thanksgiving, I had been planning
        to make a soy-based pumpkin pie for a small
        dinner with friends until I found out that
        someone else was bringing tofurkey, so I changed
        to a nonsoy recipe at the last minute. Or if I
        have a soy-based main course for dinner, I avoid
        soy products the next few days.

        I also like (and usually but not always follow)
        voice-of-reason Marion Nestle's guideline to eat
        no prepared foods that have more than 5
        ingredients. Of course, this applies more to
        snack-type foods than to foods made from
        wholesome ingredients.

        Bigger issues with actual public-health
        ramifications (and which I have not seen covered
        in the scare-of-the-day popular press) are

        -- the predominance of corn in the standard
        American diet, particularly in junk food and fast
        food, as pointed out by Michael Pollan in his
        recent book, The Omnivore's Dilemma.

        -- the fact that milk protein is the most
        carcinogenic substance known, as pointed out by
        Colin Campbell in his recent book, The China
        Study. Setting up soy formula vs. dairy-based
        formula is a paper tiger unless the risks of all
        ingredients are known, and I have never seen a
        discussion of formula that even mentions these
        risks from cow's milk.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.