Harvard study links pasteurized milk to commonly occurring cancers in humans

From Jonathan Benson at Natural News.com:

“(NaturalNews) The truth has once again shaken the foundation of the ‘American Tower of Babel’ that is mainstream science, with a new study out of Harvard University showing that pasteurized milk product from factory farms is linked to causing hormone-dependent cancers. It turns out that the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) model of raising cows on factory farms churns out milk with dangerously high levels of estrone sulfate, an estrogen compound linked to testicular, prostate, and breast cancers.

Dr. Ganmaa Davaasambuu, Ph.D., and her colleagues specifically identified “milk from modern dairy farms” as the culprit, referring to large-scale confinement operations where cows are milked 300 days of the year, including while they are pregnant. Compared to raw milk from her native Mongolia, which is extracted only during the first six months after cows have already given birth, pasteurized factory milk was found to contain up to 33 times more estrone sulfate.

Evaluating data from all over the world, Dr. Davaasambuu and her colleagues identified a clear link between consumption of such high-hormone milk, and high rates of hormone-dependent cancers. In other words, contrary to what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the conventional milk lobby would have you believe, processed milk from factory farms is not a health product, and is directly implicated in causing cancer.

“The milk we drink today is quite unlike the milk our ancestors were drinking” without apparent harm for 2,000 years, Dr. Davaasambuu is quoted as saying in the Harvard University Gazette. “The milk we drink today may not be nature’s perfect food.”

Meanwhile, raw, grass-fed, organic milk from cows milked at the proper times is linked to improving digestion, healing autoimmune disorders, and boosting overall immunity, which can help prevent cancer. Though you will never hear any of this from the mainstream media, all milk is not the same — the way a cow is raised, when it is milked, and how its milk is handled and processed makes all the difference in whether or not the end product promotes health or death….”

Read it all on Natural News.com

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035081_pasteurized_milk_cancer_dairy.html#ixzz1nab5nLKy


Filed under News

9 responses to “Harvard study links pasteurized milk to commonly occurring cancers in humans

  1. Bill Anderson

    Its worth looking at the original article from Harvard Magazine:


    The studies author is not so much implicated CAFO feeding practices, or even rBGH (which was excluded from the study) but the lactation and pregnancy cycle of modern dairy cows. It is focussing on late-lactation milk high in estrogen ( because the cows are kept pregnant most of the time, due to modern milk production demands)

  2. aed939

    An important point is that the elevated levels of estrone sulfate are produced by the cows themselves even in cows that are not injected with rBGH. It is the result of the CAFO conditions, diet, breeding, and lifecycle management practices.

  3. aed939

    That sealed the deal for us. We can only get raw milk once a week through a buying club, and for over 6 years, when we ran out, I would get an extra gallon of processed milk at the supermarket. No more. We just increased our weekly order by a gallon, and will not buy processed milk any more.

  4. Jessica

    The article was written in 2007 and just now Natural News has found it? Someone sleeping?

    I think rather than saying all milk produced by late lactation cows should be avoided, more research should be done on the soy/gmo in the feed. soy (gmo or not) has high estrogen levels and is used an much of the feed due to its high protein content. Sounds more realistic than late lactation milk being bad.

    And many CAFO’s around me milk until 4-6 weeks before the cow is due to calf again. She could have been bred back right away or missed getting pregnant for a couple of cycles doing AI. The DHIA tester has some cows heading into 18 months of steady lactation.

    My cow was AI’d 4 times before she took. Only have one cow, don’t want a “real” bull at the moment! Natural is better but AI was the only feasible way I could go this season.


    • John

      Sometimes, basic bovine biology is at play. In North America, around one month post calving the cow’s ovaries resume their function with cyclical changes in estradiol (the most potent estrogen) and progesterone. Estradiol and progesterone changes are observed in milk during each cycle, and are particularly concentrated in butterfat. During gestation, progesterone levels are sustained thoughout, with estradiol diminishing towards the middle and estrone sulfate (a much less potent estrogen from the placenta) increasing towards the end. Therefore, consuming these hormones with milk is somewhat unavoidable. The amounts will be driven substantially by the % milk fat, so milk from the Channel Island breeds, Canadienne etc will tend to have greater amounts of these hormones. Personally, I think these risks are very small indeed. To avoid them, don’t drink milk.

  5. Gordon S Watson

    Jessica = telling that you felt moved to italicize the word “real’ … REAL MILK requires REAL BULLS. The consequences of perverting the natural energies via Artificial Insemination, are being revealed as the CAFO model frantically tries to catch up with the inherent harms it causes ; ie. cows not getting pregnant. The whole wicked system is predicated on the assumption that “we know better than God” :

  6. Bill Anderson

    Gordon, is there no end to your petty insults?

    I’m certain that the semen used in AI comes from “REAL BULLS” — they just happen to be hundreds if not thousands of miles away when the cow is impregnated.

    While I would agree that most of the AI semen available in the United States is very bad (CAFO-oriented), New Zealand AI semen seems to be very progressive from what I have read and heard. NZ breeds for smaller animals that are intended for grazing, and they value milk quality (read: protein and butterfat concentration) over milk quantity. NZ also breeds for Kappa Casein (the most important protein component in the cheese making process) and for A2 milk.

    If I were a raw dairyman, I would take a serious look at New Zealand genetics. As an artisan cheesemaker, I certainly value that kind of milk over the CAFO crap.

    That being said, traditional breeding is also a worthwhile pursuit for those who wish to preserve heritage breeds. But it usually helps to have a high concentration of many small dairy farms in a local region (such as we have in Wisconsin) to facilitate that kind of traditional breeding.

  7. Anyone interested in scientific research should read “Lies, Damn Lies, and Medical Science” http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

    Most farmers drinking their own sweet fresh raw milk already know its healthier. We feel the difference in our bodies, we see the difference through the generations of our families. Depending on science to prove anything one way or the other is going to be nearly impossible. A fact which the CDC is more than happy to obfuscate and manipulate on behalf of the American Dairy Association and Monsanto.

    (Oooo, I have to look down and spit on the ground every time I say or type that foul corporation’s name.)

  8. Pingback: Milk Cure 2012: Day 6 and Milk as a Health Food Part 2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s