Milk

Introduction

What is the first image that pops into your mind when you hear the word “milk”? If you grew up in America, you are most likely envisioning a scene from your childhood, perhaps drinking a glass of milk at dinner. Milk is and has been an integral part of the classic American lifestyle, and is particularly highlighted as necessary for childhood growth and development (Flammang 118). Kids are told to drink milk every day to grow strong bones, by parents as well as larger forces like schools, TV programs, and even the government. However, an unbiased perspective tells a different story about America’s favorite drink. The construction of milk as “healthy” and necessary in the human diet is highly political, and is largely influenced by the government and associated institutions. This encyclopedia entry will delve into the history of milk in the United States, from the mid-19^th century to the present, focusing particularly on how the public perception of it has shifted. This entry will not cover the specificities of the industrialization of milk; for a more in-depth overview of this, read this technology guide and this report by the USDA (Walstra; Blayney). This entry will also provide an overview of the nutritional content of milk, and the consequent claims for and against the consumption of it. Lastly, I will explain how the controversies surrounding milk can be analyzed with a politics of health framework.

History of Milk

Understanding the history of milk is fundamental in understanding the politicization of milk. The most crucial and politically divisive part of the story of milk comes after The Great Depression, but I will first outline the foundations of milk in America to paint a full picture.

Up until the mid-19^th century, drinking fluid milk was extremely uncommon (DuPuis 5). Throughout the colonial era, the concept of having a “family cow” was relatively widespread, but the cows (and their milk) were used mostly for making butter and cheese (DuPuis 4). To read more on cows in the colonies, read this book and this article (Bradford; Chartier). Upon the turn of the 19^th century, urbanization rose, and so did the demand for fresh milk (DuPuis 5). It was primarily used as a substitute for breast milk, as both grueling factory labor and “poverty, poor sanitation and inadequate nutrition rendered” women unable to breastfeed successfully (Schmid 4). Milk consumption began to rise steadily throughout the 19^th century and by the 1840s, nearly three-quarters of children in the U.S. were drinking milk (DuPuis 6). The increased demand for milk, paired with the newfound development of liquor distilleries, led to the creation of the “slop system” of producing milk (Schmid 32). Simply put, the remnants of grain leftover from the distillation process were conveniently fed to cows, usually owned by the distillery owners, leading to maximum milk production, at the cost of emaciated cows (Schmid 32-33). This “slop milk” sickened those who drank it, and led to the “milk problem” around the end of the 19^th century; the milk available to poor populations was of horrible quality, and was likely linked to the extremely high infant mortality rates (Schmid 34, 51-52). The lack of regulation – both economically and nutritionally – was the key problem plaguing the milk industry in 19^th century America.

To solve the problem of milk contamination, businessman-turned-philanthropist Nathan Straus advocated for and eventually integrated the process of pasteurization into all milk production by 1917 (Schmid 55). The International Dairy Foods Association defines pasteurization as the process of heating “every particle of milk” to “destroy pathogens” (“Pasteurization”). To read more about Straus and the history of pasteurization, read his book here (Straus). On the economic side of things, the Babcock Test was developed and integrated into the pricing of milk to convert it from a system based on volume to one based on weight, adjusted for milkfat content (Kardashian 44-45). As time progressed, however, things got more complicated, economically speaking.

With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the demand for milk – particularly condensed milk – skyrocketed, as it was rationed out to American troops (DuPuis 93). After the war had ended, however, there was an extreme surplus of milk (DuPuis 117). In response, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act; this act aimed to limit the output of commodities in surplus (as well as the physical acreage dedicated to their production) through subsidies (Cochrane 141). History repeated itself with an increased milk demand in World War II, and the Agricultural Act of 1949 was then created as a “permanent milk price support program” (Kardashian 49). This enabled dairy farmers to produce as much dairy as they wanted, as the government would then buy the surplus in an attempt to keep it off the market and keep prices up (Kardashian 49). This is no small feat; in 1988, the government bought well over $11 billion of milk (Nash 30).

The surplus problem led the US government to take another route to cure it: advertising and propaganda of women and children (DuPuis 109). As early as 1919, weeklong “milk-for-health” campaigns were targeted at schools on the basis that “a high percentage of undernourishment among children … frequently accompanies a low average per capita consumption of milk” (Hoover). At one point, this milk education initiative advocated for children to drink four glasses of milk every day (Hoover; DuPuis 119).

Similarly, The National School Lunch Program was initiated in 1946 to “safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities”, including 8 ounces of milk (Ralston et al. 1). This program acts as “Robin Hood” in a sense, as it partially subsidizes full-priced lunches and donates the profits to the continuation of the program (Ralston et al. 1). The last initiative aimed at increasing demand for (the surplus of) milk is the Dairy Checkoff Program, which the United States Department of Agriculture defines as “a national producer and importer program for dairy product promotion, research, and nutrition education” (“National Dairy Promotion). Essentially, dairy farmers and importers pay a set fee into the “checkoff” based on how much product they sell; this checkoff fund is then used to “fund programs aimed at promoting dairy consumption and protecting the good image of dairy farmers, dairy products and the dairy industry” (“DMI”). The advertising initiative is highly effective in terms of breadth; examples of checkoff-fueled milk ads are “Got Milk?”, “Fuel Up to Play 60” – cosponsored by the NFL – and “3-A-Day” (Ward 55). Not only are these plastered all over schools, but they are present in the media – particularly, interspersed in children’s TV programs and in women’s magazines. Although the Dairy Checkoff Program began in 1915, it, along with the other pro-milk governmental initiatives are still prevalent today (“DMI”).

Milk 101

One can find an equally divisive environment by moving away from the political chaos that surrounds milk and focusing on the substance itself. The question that guided my own research – and the one that’s probably on your mind – is: is milk actually good for you? It turns out there is no one true answer. There are many different aspects of analyzing the nutritional value of milk, but I will start with the consideration of individual vitamins and nutrients. According to a pamphlet by the USDA, milk is beneficial to children for three reasons: it provides them with nutrients – namely protein, calcium, vitamin D, and potassium; it helps them build strong bones, teeth, and muscles; and it promotes further consumption of milk in adult life (“Build a Healthy Plate”).

The claim that milk is a good source of nutrients is solid; one cup of 1% milk has 305 mg of calcium, 366 mg of potassium, and 8 g of protein (“USDA Food Composition Database”). Collard greens, which many protestors use as a counterexample, has a similar but lower nutritional content in each of these categories, at a much higher cost (“USDA Food Composition Database”). To echo this, one National Institute of Health study concluded that “dairy products may represent a valuable dietary source of calcium due to their high calcium and nutrient contents, high absorptive rate, availability and relatively low cost” (Rozenberg et al.). It very well may be the case that the majority of the populations who rely on milk (arguably the ones the aforementioned milk education is directed at) are not in a place financially where they can afford fresh vegetables above widely-abundant milk.

As for the bone growth claim, there is ample evidence proving and disproving the positive correlation between milk consumption (in childhood) and bone strength. This NIH study claims that “consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, was associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in old age” (Cumming 1994). Another NIH study agrees and states that their “data do not support the hypothesis that higher consumption of milk or other food sources of calcium by adult women protects against hip or forearm fractures” (Bischoff-Ferrari et al. 2007). This Swedish study echoes the same negative, even fatal effects of milk, but points to galactose – a sugar complex present in fruit to a smaller extent – as the perpetrator (Michaëlsson et al. 2014). Regardless of this negative evidence, the belief that drinking milk will decrease likelihood of osteoporosis – the weakening of bones caused by an imbalance between bone building and bone destruction – is still commonly-held. Consuming milk and calcium-rich food is even listed as “preventative” on the National Osteoporosis Foundation’s website (“Calcium/Vitamin Requirements”). An article by Harvard’s School of Public Health sheds some light on this conflicting information; they say that “adequate calcium—both for bone development and for non-bone functions—is key to reducing the risk of osteoporosis. However, the healthiest or safest amount of dietary calcium hasn’t yet been established” (“Calcium: What’s Best”). In other words, it is hard to say whether or not milk is a good, effective source of calcium, but calcium is undeniably important in the human diet.

Each scientific study must be analyzed with the perspective that science (the conclusion) is malleable and biased. Needless to say, there are many other aspects of milk that harbor controversy. Since I will not be able to cover each individual claim, I highly encourage you to watch the Netflix documentary, What The Health. This documentary is extremely liberal and anti-milk, but makes interesting claims about the dairy industry, among others (Andersen and Kuhn 2017). Another topic widely debated about is lactose intolerance; read more about it here (Lomer et al. 2007).

I will now focus on general arguments for and against consumption of milk, as opposed to the aforementioned specifics. The counterarguments against milk are abundant, and they are worth mentioning. However, I will preface it with the arguments supporting milk consumption. As stated before, the majority of the government is on the pro-milk side. Attempting to discern which institutions are pro-milk due to subsidies as opposed to the belief that milk is healthy, is extremely difficult. The general consensus of pro-milk individuals falls in line with the USDA’s beliefs, which were outlined previously in the entry; here is a video that summarizes them (“Milk”). Aside from the USDA and associated institutions, the pro-milk movement is home to those in favor of raw (or unpasteurized) milk, including many dairy farmers themselves (Schmid 1-2). Dr. Ron Schmid, a naturopathic physician, outlines this belief, along with the history of milk in America, in his book, The Untold Story of Milk (Schmid 2003).

On the other side of the spectrum, many individuals are entirely opposed to consuming milk. I will outline a few of the reasons below, but I want to preface it with the following. In his aforementioned book, Dr. Schmid notes that a “cow’s diet largely determines the health of the cow”, which in turn affects how the milk impacts a consumer; additionally, the immune system of that consumer also influences how they will receive the milk – each person is different (37). One of the largest objections to drinking milk is the incorporation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), “a bioengineered substance that increases a cow’s milk production even more than what has been accomplished by decades of breeding” (DuPuis 217). rBGH was first used in 1985, and the FDA approved the large scale sale and distribution of rBGH milk in 1933 (Schmid 237). The hormone led to greatly increased milk production; it also led to “higher levels of white blood cells (pus)” in the milk as well as “excessive levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which is associated with cancer” in consumers (Schmid 237). Anti-milk activists may also oppose the general treatment of cows on dairy farms, which the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) outlines here (“The Dairy Industry”). Lastly, some may oppose milk consumption because it has been linked to negative physical conditions, like acne. This study explores the relationship between milk and acne (Danby 2005).

Politics of Health

Milk is highly political within itself, but is also applicable to concepts we’ve discussed in class. The primary link between politics of health and milk is through the concept of informed consent, proposed by Fisher in her piece ““Ready-to-recruit” or “ready-to-consent” populations? Informed consent and the limits of subject autonomy” (878). She outlines informed consent in the context of human subjects participating in research, who must give informed consent – agreeing to be a part of the scientific knowledge production process after knowing all of the (potential) risks – in order to allow for research to be ethical (Fisher 875). Using this framework in the context of the milk debacle, American citizens become subjects and the government becomes the researcher. It is necessary for individuals to know all of the consequences that may arise with their consumption of milk, as this consumption is heavily encouraged by the government. The government is not allowing for informed consent to occur, as it currently only perpetrates the pro-milk attitude and showcases only the positive benefits of drinking milk in the media – so as to further its own agenda. The need for informed consent is particularly important when targeting “ready-to-recruit” populations, like Fisher outlines throughout her piece; in this context, impoverished Americans are ready-to-consume, especially those who receive free or reduced-price lunches. A further analysis can occur by incorporating those who are not “citizens”, and applying Hoffman’s sympathy and exclusion framework.

I also believe that the individuals who drink or abstain from drinking milk create a biosociality of sorts. A specific example could be teenagers who develop acne as a result of milk consumption. However, there is no interaction with the government in which they acknowledge the biological damage, so the group is left at the “biosociality” stage and cannot develop into “biological citizenship” (Petryna).

Bibliography

Andersen, Kip and Keegan Kuhn, directors. What the Health. What the Health, 7 Mar. 2017, vimeo.com/ondemand/whatthehealth.

Blayney, Don P. The Changing Landscape of US Milk Production. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2002.

Bradford, William, and Charles Deane. History of Plymouth Plantation. Vol. 33. Published for the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1856.

Bischoff-Ferrari, Heike A., et al. “Calcium intake and hip fracture risk in men and women: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 86.6 (2007): 1780-1790.

“Build a Healthy Plate with Milk.” Nutrition and Wellness Tips for Young Children, fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/milk.pdf.

“Calcium/Vitamin D Requirements, Recommended Foods & Supplements.” National Osteoporosis Foundation – Osteoporosis Prevention, National Osteoporosis Foundation, www.nof.org/patients/treatment/calciumvitamin-d/.

“Calcium: What’s Best for Your Bones and Health?” The Nutrition Source, Harvard University School of Public Health, 25 July 2016, www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/.

Cochrane, Willard W. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. University of Minnesota Press, 1979.

Chartier, Craig S. “Plymouth Colony Livestock.” Plymouth Colony Livestock, Plymouth Archaeological Rediscovery Project, www.plymoutharch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Plymouth_Colony_Livestock.pdf.

Cumming, Robert G., and Robin J. Klineberg. “Case-control study of risk factors for hip fractures in the elderly.” American Journal of Epidemiology 139.5 (1994): 493-503.

Danby, F. William. “Acne and milk, the diet myth, and beyond.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 52.2 (2005): 360-362.

“DMI and the Dairy Checkoff.” About DMI – Dairy Checkoff Programs & Dairy Farmer Support , Dairy.org, www.dairy.org/about-dmi.

DuPuis, E. Melanie. Nature’s Perfect Food: how milk became America’s Drink. NYU Press, 2002.

Fisher, Jill A. ““Ready-to-recruit” or “ready-to-consent” populations? Informed consent and the limits of subject autonomy.” Qualitative Inquiry 13.6 (2007): 875-894.

Flammang, Janet A.. Table Talk : Building Democracy One Meal at a Time, University of Illinois Press, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/lib/Vand/detail.action?docID=4443059.

Hoover, Jessie May. “Educational milk-for-health campaigns.” (1923).

Kardashian, Kirk. Milk Money: Cash, Cows, and the Death of the American Dairy Farm. UPNE, 2012.

Lomer, M. C. E., G. C. Parkes, and J. D. Sanderson. “lactose intolerance in clinical practice–myths and realities.” Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 27.2 (2008): 93-103.

Michaëlsson, Karl, et al. “Milk intake and risk of mortality and fractures in women and men: cohort studies.” Bmj 349 (2014): g6015.

“Milk_Final_Cut.mp4.” Milk, USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 10 Nov. 2011.

Nash, John. Redefining the Role of Government in Agriculture for the 1990’s. Vol. 105. World Bank Publications, 1990.

“National Dairy Promotion & Research Board.” National Dairy Promotion & Research Board | Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/research-promotion/dairy.

“Pasteurization.” International Dairy Foods Association, www.idfa.org/news-views/media-kits/milk/pasteurization.

Petryna, Adriana. Life exposed: biological citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton University Press, 2013.

Ralston, Katherine, et al. “The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues. Economic Research Report Number 61.” US Department of Agriculture (2008).

Rozenberg, Serge, et al. “Effects of dairy products consumption on health: benefits and beliefs—a commentary from the Belgian Bone Club and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.” Calcified tissue international 98.1 (2016): 1-17.

Schmid, Ronald F., and Sally Fallon. Untold Story of Milk. New Trends Pub., 2003.

Straus, Nathan. Disease in Milk: The Remedy, Pasteurization; the Life Work of Nathan Straus. Dutton, 1917.

“The Dairy Industry.” The Dairy Industry: Cows Used for Food, PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/cows/dairy-industry/.

Thorning, Tanja Kongerslev, et al. “Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence.” Food & nutrition research 60.1 (2016): 32527.

“USDA Food Composition Databases.” Food Composition Databases Show Foods List 01175, United States Department of Agriculture, ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list?qlookup=01175.

Ward, Ronald W. “Commodity checkoff programs and generic advertising.” Choices. 2nd Quarter 21.2 (2006): 55-60.

Walstra, Pieter. Dairy Technology: Principles of Milk Properties and Processes. CRC Press, 1999.

« Back to Glossary Index