In Part I of The Great Milk Controversy, we looked at the question of human consumption of cow’s milk past the age of 8 years.  In Part II we will look at the dairy and non-dairy options available.

RAW, ORGANIC, PASTEURIZED & HOMOGENIZED?

Many people use the terms “raw” and “organic” almost interchangeably, and before I started this research I believed them to be the same!  (Grounds for a lynching in some parts.)

So, to be clear, organic milk comes from mostly grass-fed cows – free from the use of hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides.  It may or may not be pasteurized (heated to kill pathogens) or homogenized (processed to distribute fat globules evenly).

Raw milk is organic milk which has not been pasteurized or homogenized.

Concerns about pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones in “conventional” milk increase the appeal of raw and organic milk.

The price tag makes it less appealing (usually at least double).

Do the benefits warrant the cost? The answer really depends on what you consider important.

Most consider the infinitesimal amounts of pesticides making it into milk to be insignificant, and dairies throw out milk testing positive for antibiotics.  Many brands of “regular” milk are hormone free (check the labels).

But consider this: organic milk has 25% less omega 6 and 62% more omega 3 (discussed in part 1), and is also more humane and environmentally friendly.

The far superior taste also keeps many happy organic fans plunking down the cash to enjoy this delicacy (it does taste good!)

Raw milk has some additional advantages over pasteurized organic.  The vitamin content is higher and it contains beneficial bacteria and enzymes which are good for digestive systems.  Many “lactose intolerant” are actually able to consume raw milk.

One caveat . . . approximately 17% of raw milk drinkers become ill.  While, some claim the numbers are overblown and insignificant, the CDC believes the 17% number to be conservative.

The numbers are probably not overblown, but the reaction to them certainly is. Raw milk is not dangerous, as many would have us believe.  Pasteurization was an over-reaction to a problem which had a much simpler solution – i.e. standards of cleanliness (which are common practice today).

Selecting a raw-milk dairy requires careful inspection of the standards of care – something that Americans are not accustomed to any more.  We are happy to destroy the nutritional value of our food – even poison it – so we don’t have to think about a handful of germs. . . bad germs to be sure, but there are better solutions that simply require more effort on the part of the consumer. Labeling raw milk as dangerous because some dairies employ sloppy quality control standards is not reasonable . . . but if you want the benefit of raw milk it is very important to carefully consider the source.

The choice is personal, of course, but since e-coli can be deadly in the very young, the ill, and the elderly, it might be best to forego raw for these populations.

As for homogenization, the research jury is still out.  Claims of increased risk of heart disease and allergy have not been adequately proven.  Some go so far as to say the claims have been disproven, but I think this overstates the research as well.  It seems an unnecessary process to me with no real benefit beyond perhaps convenience – but for now it is probably just a matter of preference.

LOW-FAT, NON-FAT, WHOLE MILK?

Low-fat and non-fat milk offer no actual health advantage over whole milk.

Whole milk improves cholesterol levels – just not as much as low- or non-fat.  However, those who consume low-fat milk tend to gain more weight than the full-fat drinkers.  Some scientists believe reducing fat in milk can promote hunger and overeating – and the fat in the diet tends to be replaced by carbs, leading to weight gain.

I don’t know . . . maybe.

The process to create low-fat and non-fat versions is not as simple as removing cream, but involves adding powdered milk and other unhealthy ingredients to make the cream-free milk more palatable.  Some scientists attribute weight gain to these additives, rather than carb replacement.

That could be too.  We may never really know.

My motto is to eat food as close to its natural state as possible, so I don’t trust the additives in low-fat/non-fat milk.  That’s just me.

MILK ALTERNATIVES

Having determined that some people may want to avoid milk due to lactose intolerance, veganism, or safety concerns, I now turn to the almost equally contentious world of milk alternatives.

The most common – and readily available – milk alternatives are:

•      Soy
•      Almond
•      Coconut
•      Rice

 

A few additional options, such as hemp, are more challenging to find, so I’ll confine myself to the big four.

The most popular and most controversial is soy.

THE SOY CONTROVERSY

Here we have another controversy within a controversy.

In case you were not aware, soy is responsible for malnutrition, indigestion, autoimmune disorders, thyroid problems, brain disorders, reproductive disorders (including infertility), cancer and heart disease!  Detractors cite “thousands” of studies proving soy is perhaps the greatest threat to human health of our time.

Unfortunately, most of the mentioned studies involved rodents, rather than human test subjects.  While rodent studies have some value in scientific research, the fact that rodents metabolize soy much differently than humans make these studies less than useful.

Much of the soy concern centers on the similarity of estrogen and the “isoflavones” found in soybeans.  Although isoflavones may have an estrogen-like effect in certain circumstances, they may also have opposite effects to estrogen or no effect at all.  That being the case, looking at the health effects of estrogen doesn’t equate to looking at the health effects of soy (or isoflavones).

Human trials involving soy and isoflavones are the only reliable indicators of the health effects of soy.

Once the field is pared down to these worthwhile studies, there are over 1500 studies showing the positive benefits of soy and only about 20 showing that altered and/or de-denatured soy may be hazardous.  The key is to use only whole bean, non-GMO soy, with no added sugars (ie. brown rice syrup, evaporated cane juice, etc).

Looking at the data, I feel the anti-soy headlines are overblown.  However, for those concerned enough to forgo soy, there are some others to consider.

NUTRITIONAL COMPARISONS

In terms of nutrition, soy milk has comparable amounts of protein, calcium, and vitamin D to cow’s milk.

Almond milk is probably the most popular and nutritious of the remaining milk alternatives.  Although the taste is not actually similar, many people enjoy the smooth flavor.  It also stands alone in calcium content comparable to cow’s milk – along with several healthy minerals.

 

Coconut milk is popular among those who enjoy the slight coconut flavor.  Coconut milk is a mixed bag; high in calories, sodium and sugar – low in calcium and protein.  However, it does contain vitamins C, E, and B’s, several essential minerals, medium-chain fatty acids and lauric acid.

 

 

High in carbs and glycemic value, rice milk is the least nutritious of the popular alternatives.  It’s value lies in the taste and being less allergenic – although it tends to be gritty.

So, there you have it.  Lots of material for you to make an informed choice about your health and your dairy (or non-dairy) beverage.  Perhaps the primary lesson I have learned is that people are very, very passionate about their beverages! I apologize for my own lack of passion on the subject.  I’m afraid I don’t care that much what you decide to drink (or not drink) as long as you have reliable facts.