- - WARTS ON CONSUMER REPORTS
- Somebody kissed a handsome Prince
(Consumer Reports) and turned him
into a festering wart on a toad's tush.
CONSUMER REPORTS ATTACKS MILK CRITICS
In the past, the mother of all consumer
safety organizations existed to protect
the health interests of consumers.
These watchdogs of society rigorously
tested and analyzed consumer products and
reported unbiased results to their readers.
The September, 2001 issue of Consumer
Reports focuses its usually unbiased
eye upon the milk controversy. Instead
of using a clear 20/20-style analysis
of real science, Consumer Reports reveals
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.
In their milk analysis, they have
compromised their standards, sacrificed
their integrity, and, in doing so, have
betrayed all consumers by ignoring
the real scientific evidence.
Their biased review of milk consumption
begins with this question, aimed at
Such a question should have been
aimed at the National Fluid Milk
Producers (NFMP) who continue
to make outlandish claims, not the
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,
They reviewed press releases and milk
mustache ads and criticized the
Consumers Reports reLIEs upon a study
by Robert Heaney, M.D., to assess milk's
They ignore the fact that Dr. Heaney
works for the dairy industry.
They cite the Harvard Nurse study,
(78,000 participants), but selectively
omit a key observation of that study:
Women who drank milk and ate
cheese as teenagers develop higher
rates of pelvic and forearm fractures
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 are crippled with
Consumer Reports does not explore how animal
protein creates an acid condition in the
blood, which causes calcium bone loss.
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
Consumer Reports utilizes every bit of
phony non-science-based marketing
published by the dairy industry to
reinforce milk myths.
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
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 Consumer's 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
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
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
As for lactose intolerance, Consumer
Reports promotes the antidote,
lactase, while ignoring the real
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
Consumer Reports explores 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 Reports ignored:
Consumer Reports has a clear agenda.
They wish to preserve their subscriber
base. People hearing that milk is
unhealthy usually respond by attacking
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.
NOTE: SHOULD YOU WISH TO SEND THIS COLUMN
TO YOUR FRIENDS OR RELATIVES, HERE IS THE