(NaturalBlaze by Heather Callaghan) The first team of researchers ever to discover that the world’s most popular pesticides and herbicides increase the antibiotic resistance crisis have conducted another study to prove once and for all a frightening truth we must respond to.
Researchers at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand have confirmed once again that active ingredients of the commonly used herbicides, Roundup, Kamba and 2,4-D (glyphosate, dicamba and 2,4-D, respectively), each alone cause antibiotic resistance at concentrations well below label application rates.
Professor Jack Heinemann of the School of Biological Sciences in UC’s College of Science said the key finding of the research was that “bacteria respond to exposure to the herbicides by changing how susceptible they are to antibiotics used in human and animal medicine.”
The herbicides studied are three of the most widely used in the world, Prof Heinemann said. They are also used on crops that have been genetically modified to tolerate them.
The effect was not seen at herbicide concentrations that are presently allowed for food (called Maximum Residue Limits, MRL). However, the effect was seen at concentrations well below those applied to plants (application rates). Therefore, the authors believe, the effect is most likely to arise in farm workers in rural areas and in children in urban settings who are exposed to herbicides, if they are also on antibiotics.
Heinemann said,
They are among the most common manufactured chemical products to which people, pets and livestock in both rural and urban environments are exposed. These products are sold in the local hardware store and may be used without training, and there are no controls that prevent children and pets from being exposed in home gardens or parks. Despite their ubiquitous use, this University of Canterbury research is the first in the world to demonstrate that herbicides may be undermining the use of a fundamental medicine – antibiotics.
We reported on their previous research that discovered the same effects of pesticides on antibiotic resistance. A Monsanto spokesman at the time responded that the research couldn’t determine whether it was the active ingredients or the surfactants used in pesticides that actually made antibiotic resistance worse.
This research is a response to Monsanto’s claims to prove once and for all that both the active ingredients in pesticides and the surfactants are responsible for contributing to antibiotic resistance.
So now the scientists have even more bad news:
In addition, the new paper finds that added ingredients (surfactants) that are commonly used in some herbicide formulations and processed foods also cause antibiotic resistance. An antibiotic resistance response was caused by both the tested surfactants, Tween80 and CMC. Both are also used as emulsifiers in foods like ice cream and in medicines, and both cause antibiotic resistance at concentrations allowed in food and food-grade products.
Commenting on the regulatory implications of his team’s findings, Prof Heinemann said: “The sub-lethal effects of industrially manufactured chemical products should be considered by regulators when deciding whether the products are safe for their intended use.”
This discovery has much wider implications that we will have to handle in a future article…
“The United States, for example, estimates that more than two million people are sickened every year with antibiotic-resistant infections, with at least 23,000 dying as a result. By 2050, resistance is estimated to add 10 million annual deaths globally with a cumulative cost to the world economy of US$100 trillion. In other words, roughly twice the population of New Zealand will be lost annually to antibiotic resistance,” said Prof Heinemann.
The biggest problem with our regulatory agencies is that they only study lethal or acute toxicity levels. They don’t focus on sub-lethal effects like how pesticides can kill ecologically important microbes. They focus on the effects of chemicals on humans and animals but not other organisms. Lastly, they do not consider the bigger picture such as cumulative and long-term effects of chemicals or what they do in combination.
Heinemann concludes:
Where this information is sought, it is usually only for people or animals. We are unaware of any regulator ever considering the risk of sub-lethal effects on bacteria. That is what makes this new research so important.
More emphasis needs to be placed on antibiotic stewardship compared to new antibiotic discovery. Otherwise, new drugs will fail rapidly and be lost to humanity.
Genetically engineered crops have increased the use of these pesticides. Pesticides aside, many have fears that the introduction of genetic engineering into the ecology will have grave ramifications. Norway, for instance, has banned GE salmon over fears of antibiotic resistance. And, earlier this year, an illegal GE bacteria found its way into an EU feedlot and it, too, was found to be resistant to antibiotics showing once again how reckless and unstable Big Biotech’s use of this technology really is.
(Mercola) Exposure to pesticides, herbicides and insecticides has dramatically increased since the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) crops. Urine output of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, shot up by more than 1,200 percent between 1993 and 2016.1 Unfortunately, glyphosate is not the only chemical of concern.
Chlorpyrifos (sold under the trade name Lorsban) — an organophosphate insecticide known to disrupt brain development and cause brain damage, neurological abnormalities, reduced IQ and aggressiveness in children — is another.2 ,3 In adults, the chemical has been linked to Parkinson’s disease4,5 and lung cancer.6
Chlorpyrifos has been in use since 1965, and is commonly used on staple crops such as wheat and corn, as well as fruits and vegetables, including nonorganic citrus, apples, cherries, strawberries, broccoli, cauliflower and dozens of others. Since the chemical has a half-life of several months and can remain on sprayed foods for up to several weeks,7 nonorganic foods are a major source of exposure.
Importantly, nonorganic, non-grass fed meats are likely to be loaded with this chemical, since conventional feed consists primarily of genetically and/or conventionally-raised grains such as corn. This is yet another reason to make sure you feed your family grass fed meats and animal products, especially your young children. Chlorpyrifos is also a commonly found water contaminant, and has even been found in indoor air.8
Children experience greater exposure to chemicals pound-for-pound than adults, and have an immature and porous blood-brain barrier that allows greater chemical exposures to reach their developing brain. Needless to say, the results can be devastating and, indeed, many agricultural and industrial chemicals have been found to affect children’s brain function and development specifically.
Decadelong Effort to Ban Chlorpyrifos Fall Through
Permissible uses of chlorpyrifos was limited in the year 2000, at which time the chemical was banned for use in homes, schools, day care facilities, parks, hospitals, nursing homes and malls. However, agricultural use remained, and it can still be used on golf courses and road medians.
Scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actually pushed for a complete ban on chlorpyrifos, as its dangers are well-documented, and the chemical is in fact classified as a neurotoxin, as it disrupts communication between brain cells. Research shows that living within 1 mile of chlorpyrifos-treated fields increases a woman’s risk of having an autistic child by 300 percent.9,10
A petition to ban chlorpyrifos on food was filed over a decade ago, and the lack of response from the EPA finally led to a federal court ordering the EPA to issue a decision.11 Forced to act, Scott Pruitt, President Trump-appointed head of the EPA,12 issued an order denying the petition to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos on food in March 2017.13,14 As noted by NPR:15
“That’s despite the agency’s earlier conclusion, reached during the Obama administration, that this pesticide could pose risks to consumers. It’s a signal that toxic chemicals will face less restrictive regulation by the Trump administration. In its decision, the EPA didn’t exactly repudiate its earlier scientific findings. But the agency did say that there’s still a lot of scientific uncertainty about the risks of chlorpyrifos …
Patti Goldman, from the environmental group Earth Justice, calls the decision “unconscionable,” and says that her group will fight it in court … ‘Based on the harm that this pesticide causes, the EPA cannot, consistent with the law, allow it in our food.'”
87 Percent of Newborns Have Chlorpyrifos in Their Cord Blood
Considering Pruitt’s history of championing industry interests and the evidence showing other EPA officials have has taken an active role in protecting chemical giants against rulings that would impact their bottom line, his decision to keep chlorpyrifos on the market does raise suspicions. As noted by USA Today,16 Pruitt “filed more than a dozen lawsuits seeking to overturn some of the same regulations he is now charged with enforcing.”
Evidence also suggests Dow Chemical, the maker of chlorpyrifos, pressured government agencies to ignore incriminating studies (see next section). The EPA’s earlier conclusion that chlorpyrifos posed a risk to consumers was largely based on research17 showing that exposure to the chemical caused measurable differences in brain function. In one study, compared to children whose exposure to the chemical was negligible, children with high levels of exposure had lower IQ at age 7.18
Research19 published in 2014 showed that pregnant women exposed to chlorpyrifos during their second trimester had a 60 percent higher risk of giving birth to an autistic child. Studies have also shown that genetic differences can make some people far more vulnerable to chlorpyrifos than others.
Moreover, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chlorpyrifos is metabolized in the human body into 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCPy),20 which is even more toxic than the original insecticide. Disturbingly, California’s biomonitoring program found TCPy in 82 percent of Californians sampled in 2012, including pregnant women.21
Another 2012 study,22 which measured chlorpyrifos levels in maternal and cord plasma of women and children living in an agricultural community, found measurable levels in 70.5 percent of maternal blood samples and 87.5 percent of cord blood samples. According to the authors:
“Blood organophosphate pesticide levels of study participants were similar in mothers and newborns and slightly higher than those reported in other populations. However, compared to their mothers, newborns have much lower quantities of the detoxifying PON1 enzyme suggesting that infants may be especially vulnerable to organophosphate pesticide exposures.”
Dow Chemical Requested Evidence to Be ‘Set Aside’
Government-funded studies also reveal that chlorpyrifos poses serious risks to 97 percent of endangered animals in the U.S.23,24 This alone ought to be cause enough to ban this chemical, but it appears industry pressure worked its usual magic.
On April 13, 2017, a legal team representing Dow Chemical and two other organophosphate manufacturers sent letters to the three agencies responsible for joint enforcement of the Endangered Species Act25,26 — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Commerce — asking them to “set aside” these incriminating findings, as the companies believe they are flawed. As reported by USA Today:
“Over the past four years, federal scientists have compiled … more than 10,000 pages indicating the three pesticides under review — chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion — pose a risk to nearly every endangered species they studied. Regulators at the three federal agencies … are close to issuing findings expected to result in new limits on how and where the highly toxic pesticides can be used …
The EPA’s recent biological evaluation of chlorpyrifos found the pesticide is ‘likely to adversely affect’ 1,778 of the 1,835 animals and plants accessed as part of its study, including critically endangered or threatened species of frogs, fish, birds and mammals … In a statement, the Dow subsidiary that sells chlorpyrifos said its lawyers asked for the EPA’s biological assessment to be withdrawn because its ‘scientific basis was not reliable.'”
Pruitt claims he’s “trying to restore regulatory sanity to EPA’s work.” I would argue the definition of sanity is first not to abandon the EPA’s mandate to protect the public health and, further, not to give developmentally crippling toxins a free pass and ignoring loads of unbiased research documenting its toxicity.
At present, the EPA is also in the process of reassessing atrazine, another pernicious and exceptionally toxic agricultural chemical. It remains to be seen whether the agency will finally take a firm stand against this pernicious toxin, or let it slide like chlorpyrifos and glyphosate.
Toxic Exposures Have Robbed Americans of 41 Million IQ Points
Problems with cognitive function that are not severe enough for diagnosis are becoming even more common than neurobehavioral development disorders. In 2012, David Bellinger, Ph.D., professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, published a study funded by the National Institutes of Health where he calculated the impact of toxic exposures on children’s IQ.27
He determined that based on a population of 25.5 million children, aged birth to 5, those born to mothers exposed to organophosphates, mercury or lead during pregnancy suffered a combined loss of 16.9 million IQ points. Researchers calculated a collective loss of 41 million IQ points in the U.S. from the same exposures.28 Conventional farmers are reluctant to stop using pesticides as this will put their crops at risk, and pesticide makers will not support a ban for obvious reasons.
But at what point do we say enough is enough? How many children have to be sacrificed for financial profits? Considering the lack of proactive measures from government and industry, it’s up to each and every one of us to be proactive in our own lives. One of the most effective ways to reduce your exposure to toxic pesticides, herbicides and insecticides is to buy certified organic foods, or better yet, foods certified biodynamic.
Environmental Toxins Kill 1.7 Million Children Annually, Worldwide
Untested chemicals should not be presumed safe.29 The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that environmental pollution, including but not limited to toxic exposures, kills 1.7 million children every year.30 The top five causes of death for children under 5 are related to their environment.
A recent report from CHEMTrust, a British charity working internationally to prevent man-made chemicals from triggering damage to wildlife or humans, found current chemical testing is not adequately picking up chemicals that cause developmental neurotoxicity.31Their “No Brainer” report32 evaluated the impact of chemicals on the development of a child’s brain.
The report praised the European Food Safety Authority for work on risk assessment of pesticides and recommended their approach be expanded to include chemicals from other sources.33
They also recommended chemicals used for food contact material be routinely tested and screened for developmental neurotoxicity. The report also called for a taskforce to identify and develop better ways to screen chemicals before use. Without a doubt, the U.S. needs to follow suit and take a stronger stance against chemicals suspected of neurotoxicity.
How to Protect Your Family From Toxic Pesticides
According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report on pesticide residues in food,34 in 2014, 41 percent of samples had no detectable pesticide residues. The following year, a mere 15 percent of all the food samples tested were free from pesticide residues. That just goes to show how rapidly and dramatically our pesticide exposure has increased.
Here’s a summary of commonsense recommendations that will help reduce your exposure to pesticides, and help you eliminate toxins you may already have been exposed to:
•As a general rule, your safest bet is to grow your own food, followed by buying certified organic or, better yet, biodynamic produce, and grass fed or pastured meats and animal products. See the listing below for sources where you can locate farm-fresh foods locally. If you cannot afford an all-organic/biodynamic diet, focus on buying grass fed and organic pastured meats first.
Next, familiarize yourself with average pesticide loads and buy (or grow) organic varieties of produce known to carry the highest amounts of pesticides. You can find a quick rundown in the Consumer Reports video above.35 Another excellent source, which is updated annually, is the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) shopper’s guide36 to pesticides in produce.
•Filtering your drinking water is also important. To remove pesticides, look for a filter certified by the NSF International to meet American National Standards Institute Standard 53 for volatile organic compounds reduction. This will ensure the filter is capable of significantly reducing pesticides.37 Most activated carbon filters will meet this requirement and get the job done.
•Carefully wash all nonorganic produce to remove surface pesticides. According to a recent study,38 the most effective cleaning method, by far, is to wash your produce using a mixture of tap water and baking soda. Soaking apples in a 1 percent baking soda solution for 12 to 15 minutes was found to remove 80 percent of the fungicide thiabendazole and 96 percent of the insecticide phosmet.
•Lastly, if you know you have been exposed to pesticides, eating fermented foods and/or using a low-EMF far infrared sauna can be helpful, especially if combined with an optimal supplemental detox regimen including binders to catch the toxins that are mobilized from the fats. The lactic acid bacteria formed during the fermentation of kimchi has been shown to help your body break down pesticides.
The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.
Their website also allows you to search for AGA approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; born and raised on American family farms.
EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.
Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.
This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.
The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.
The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.
If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund39 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.40 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.
(NaturalBlaze by Vic Bishop) An examination of over 3600 cases concludes that alcohol is ten times deadlier on the road than cannabis, a fact which is just now being confirmed as a result of legalization. Opponents of legalization have long argued that it legal cannabis would be a significant danger on the roads, but as can again confirm, it is indeed much safer than alcohol, a drug which has killed hundreds of thousands of people on America’s roads alone.
They estimated the heightened risk of driving under the influence of various substances and found that “drivers under the influence of alcohol are 17.8 times more likely to be responsible for a fatal accident,” when compared to completely sober drivers. Drivers under the influence of cannabis, by contrast, are 1.65 times more likely to be responsible for causing a fatal accident. [Source]
The results of this study are highly relevant to the debate over cannabis legalization, and continue to affirm the arguments made by advocates of legalization.
Those findings are in line with most recent studies of alcohol and cannabis and driving risk. Earlier this year David Bienenstock investigated the science behind drugged driving estimates, and found that THC-positive drivers have a 5% greater crash risk than drivers with no drugs or alcohol in their system. That figure came from the largest domestic case-control study to date, which was published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a federal agency. That same study found that drivers with a blood alcohol level of .08, the legal limit in most states, were 293% more likely to be involved in a crash. Texting drivers were 310% more likely to crash. [Source]
Drivers under the influence of only cannabis showed little driving impairment when compared to drivers under the influence of alcohol or both substances.
Drivers with blood concentrations of 13.1 ug/L THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the active ingredient in cannabis) showed similar impairment to drivers with a .08 breath alcohol concentration, the legal limit in most states. The current legal limit for THC in Washington and Colorado is 5 ug/L.
Drivers who use alcohol and cannabis together weave more on a virtual roadway than ones that used either substance independently, although consuming both does not double the impairment.
Analyzing a driver’s oral fluids can detect recent use of cannabis although it should not be considered a reliable measure of impairment.
Alcohol, however, is widely known for being highly dangerous on the road:
Alcohol is the most common drug present in the system in roadside stops by police; cannabis is the next most common, and cannabis is often paired with alcohol below the legal limits.
We know alcohol is an issue, but is cannabis an issue or is cannabis an issue when paired with alcohol? We tried to find out. ~ Tim Brown, associate research scientist at NADS and co-author of the study. [Source]
Final Thoughts
While this evidence should not be taken as a sign that cannabis-related automotive deaths are insignificant, this research does add weight to the argument that cannabis is far safer than alcohol, in many different ways. This is to support the notion that legalization would have far more positive effects on society than continuing to perpetuate the often terrifying criminalization of this natural plant, over-burdening the justice and prison system.
(Natural Blaze by Brandon Turbeville) To no one’s surprise, the U.S. government, after hysterically declaring a “national emergency” over America’s opioid crisis, is once again setting its sights on Kratom, the non-addictive natural plant that has helped thousands of Americans wean themselves off opioids.
In 2015, the DEA announced its plans to place Kratom on the list of Controlled Substances (in the same scheduling level as heroin to be exact) but, amid public outcry, the agency backed off, deferring to FDA “review” and “advice.” Many optimistic Kratom activists were tempted to rest on their laurels, trusting that the FDA would prove to be more reasonable in relation to Kratom and hoping the testimonials, overwhelming public support for Kratom, and the science itself would win the day.
As is typically the case in life, the optimists were sorely disappointed.
The FDA, long known to be essentially run by Big Pharma, has now joined the ranks of the DEA (which also placed CBD oil on the list of controlled substances on the same level as heroin) in a scathing attack on Kratom, signalling that the end may be nigh for the miracle plant if activists do not succeed in fighting back both behemoth agencies who act as the enforcement arms of Big Pharma, the private prison industry, and the police state.
The Food and Drug Administration issued a strong warning Tuesday to consumers to stay away from the herbal supplement kratom, saying regulators are aware of 36 deaths linked to products containing the substance.
. . . . .
But in a statement, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said that there is no “reliable evidence” to support the use of kratom as a treatment for opioid-use disorder, and that there are no other FDA-approved uses for kratom.
Rather, he said, evidence shows that the herb has similar effects to narcotics like opioids, “and carries similar risks of abuse, addiction and, in some cases, death.” He said that calls to U.S. poison control centers involving kratom increased tenfold between 2010 and 2015, and that the herb is associated with side effects including seizures, liver damage and withdrawal symptoms.
Virtually none of the scientists who are working with Kratom, however, share the same hysteria and apocalyptic concerns of the FDA, which itself has overseen massive outbreaks of death and addiction as a result of pharmaceuticals it has approved as safe. Indeed, many users of Kratom found the plant in order to ween themselves off the opioids that the FDA so delightfully approved and promoted. Now, with middle America in an alleged “crisis,” the FDA wants to remove one of the few helpful resources to getting clean. The DEA, of course, continues to hunt those same Americans as if they were deer during open season for imprisonment, harassment, fines, and/or on-sight executions.
It should be noted that the FDA’s claims of 36 deaths have been largely disproven before the FDA even made the claims, with many of those deaths attributed to people who had drugs in their system in addition to Kratom or who died of other causes.
Again, as the Washington Post reports,
Jack Henningfield, an addiction specialist who works at the drug policy consulting group Pinney Associates, which has done work for the American Kratom Association, said that surveys have shown that people using opioids to treat pain or satisfy an addiction were able to stop using them by drinking kratom tea. He argued that kratom’s “overall abuse potential and risk of death isn’t anything close to narcotics like opioids” and warned that restricting or banning the substance could drive some people back to opioids or onto the black market to get kratom.
In a study last year for the American Kratom Association, Henningfield, an adjunct professor of behavior policy at Johns Hopkins, found that effectively banning kratom “is not warranted from a public health perspective and is more likely to cause public health problems that do not exist.”
At worst, Kratom is only marginally addictive, with withdrawal symptoms similar to that of caffeine if taken in high doses for long periods of time . . . maybe. The overwhelming majority of Kratom users, however, do not report “withdrawal” symptoms at all.
Scott Gottlieb’s ridiculous rant about the dangers of Kratom is not based on science. It is based on the bottom line for the police state, Big Pharma, and the private prison industrial complex. Kratom threatens to reduce the amount of Americans slated to fill up jail cells, the dependency on pain medications, the use of SSRIs and other anti-depressants. Therefore, like marijuana, Kratom has to be stomped out so the gravy train can continue un-interrupted for the pharmaceutical and prison industries.
Now, as everyone paying attention to the Kratom debate and the current climate in the United States would have expected, an unelected, non-legislative body of totalitarians who claim non-psychoactive CBD oil is the same as heroin and whose entire existence depends on locking up peaceful people for possessing or consuming plants will likely ensure that thousands of Americans will be denied access to a life-saving plant. Once more, many people will turn to heroin and other opioids and the DEA can continue to arrest them. Thousands of others will be forced to seek out permission and dictatorial authority figures that pass for doctors in order to kill pain and get through the day. And once they need more of those painkillers or seek out illegal alternatives, the DEA will be able to arrest them, too.
The American Kratom Association has responded to the FDA statement with a statement of its own saying that, “For years, the FDA has published scientifically inaccurate information on the health effects of consuming kratom, directly influencing regulatory actions by the DEA, states, and various local government entities. It is inconceivable that the FDA would favor a policy that would foreseeably force a patient who [has] been weaned off of opioid [addiction] back to dangerously addictive and potentially deadly opioid prescription medications.”
Already, the FDA is intercepting shipments of Kratom. The hysterical and, quite frankly, idiotic statement from Gottlieb signals dark days ahead for Kratom users, former drug addicts, sufferers of chronic pain and depression. But these will be dark days for more people than Kratom users. Every American citizen forced to live under the stifling anathema to freedom known as the drug war will have no choice but to continue to reside amid mass incarceration, forced medication, and needless suffering and will most likely do so for years to come.
The U.S. government is making America many things but great isn’t one of them.
Support the American Kratom Association in their upcoming legal battle for civil liberties and health freedom. www.AmericanKratom.org
(Natural Blaze By Maria Andrade) An ingredient in cow’s milk has now been identified as a type 1 diabetes trigger in those with genetic risk factors, but researchers say they have been frustrated in efforts to make the findings available to the wider public.
The United States is the world’s largest producer of pasteurized cow milk, but oddly enough it is also one of the world’s smallest consumers. The dairy industry thus has a vested interest in eliminating all raw milk suppliers from the market place to enforce and increase per capita consumption of pasteurized milk which is lagging behind most of the world.
Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamins C, B12 and B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer.
Seven researchers assessed 71 studies on population epidemiology, animal trials, in vitro laboratory experiments, biochemistry and pharmacology.
Their paper on the findings, originally published in the Journal of Nutrition & Diabetes, said the A1 beta-casein in cow’s milk is a primary causal trigger of the disease.
However, so far there have been no clinical trials on the subject.
Two of the seven researchers, the University of Auckland’s Professor Boyd Swinburn and Lincoln University’s Professor Keith Woodford, explained: “People who are genetically susceptible to developing type 1 diabetes would need to be identified at birth, and half of them randomly allocated to a diet free of A1 beta-casein for many years.”
The paper revealed that the sudden growth in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in China is correlated with the country’s threefold increase in dairy consumption per capita (from 6kg in 1992 to 18kg in 2006, with substantial increases thereafter).
In Shanghai alone, new type 1 diabetes cases among children aged 15 and below increased 14.2% annually between 1997 and 2011. Further south, in Zhejiang, the annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes cases was 12% among adolescents aged 19 and below.
More worryingly, children below five saw the greatest increase in such cases, at an annual rate of 33.61%. Young children’s dependence on milk consumption could explain the higher prevalence of type 1 diabetes among those below the age of five.
The paper stated: “Accordingly, the ecological epidemiological data, although not proving causation, provide powerful evidence that A1 beta-casein is a causal factor in the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes.”
The researchers also wrote that though the A1 beta-casein may be a cause of type 1 diabetes in consumers, “there are also likely to be many influencing factors involved in responses to dietary triggers, permissive gut factors and progression towards type 1 diabetes, such as short duration (of) / no breastfeeding, Caesarean delivery rates, and magnitude of exposure to vitamin D.”
They suggested that while it would be possible to change all dairy herds to produce milk without the A1 beta-casein, the process would take 10 years.
The alternative, they said, would be for consumers to opt for goat’s and sheep’s milk instead.
On his WordPress site, Woodford revealed that he and Swinburn had intended to make the paper free for public perusal, but in order to do that, they had to find a sponsor to pay a one-time fee to make the article free of charge.
Commercial Gain
The a2 Milk Company stepped in and paid the US$3,500 required to make the paper free-access. Unlike most cow’s milk brands, the company produces A2 milk free of the A1 beta-casein.
Swinburn and Woodford also wanted online portal The Conversation – an online publisher, sponsored collectively by universities – to publish an abbreviated version of the paper for a wider public audience, but they were turned down.
The editors told them: “The main reason is the involvement of the a2 Milk Company, for editorial support in this particular paper, but also more directly in funding-related research projects, and the perception that the company would stand to gain commercially.”
Woodford wrote that one of the paper’s authors was a former a2 Milk Company employee, but said none of the authors were paid to write the paper.
He added that despite its financial involvement, the a2 Milk Company did not get to read the paper until it had been published, and therefore, “had no corporate influence over the content or editorial processes”.
