|Written by Kimberly Hartke |
|Wednesday, 03 April 2013 13:37|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 3, 2013--Washington, D.C.--( GlobeNewswire)--A recent CDC study claims that unpasteurized milk and products made with unpasteurized milk cause 150 times more outbreaks than pasteurized milk or products made from pasteurized milk. After careful analysis, The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) finds the CDC study to be substantially flawed and misleading.
In 2013, bills to expand raw milk access are being introduced in as many as sixteen states. The CDC report was issued during the 2012 legislative season. Raw milk proponents say the CDC report could have an impact on a number of state bills in 2013 that aim to broaden consumer access to raw milk. Raw milk bills in Indiana, Iowa and Wyoming died in committee. Another example would be Wisconsin where Assistant Majority Leader Glenn Grothman plans to introduce a raw milk bill. Last week, Wisconsin public health officials and medical ‘experts’ put out an anti-raw milk statement that relied heavily on the CDC study.
The study by Langer et al can be viewed here:
“The CDC data released in the Langer paper, March 2012, actually showed no statistical difference in the rate of illness attributed to raw milk or products produced from raw milk compared to those produced from pasteurized milk,” says Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, “so CDC used the number of ‘outbreaks’ to make raw milk look bad. CDC defines an outbreak as two or more illnesses, and outbreaks involving raw milk or raw milk products involve far fewer individuals than outbreaks involving pasteurized milk. What really counts is the number of illnesses.” See WAPF press release, February 2012, CDC Cherry Picks Data to Make Case Against Raw Milk.
The Weston A. Price Foundation is a worldwide nutrition education nonprofit. Their Campaign for Real Milk (realmilk.com) works to restore this traditional food to its rightful place in the human diet.
The report has numerous scientific flaws that call in to question its credibility. For instance the report claims that there are more outbreaks in states that allow raw milk sales. The premise that allowing raw milk sales in a state leads to more outbreaks is not valid because the researchers lumped all dairy products together for analysis rather than limiting it to fluid milk. “Since they fail to present analysis that compares laws concerning fluid milk and outbreaks attributed to fluid milk, we must conclude that they didn’t find any statistical difference,” says Fallon Morell. “Despite the obvious motive to demonstrate a link between changing the laws to permit raw milk and increased public risk, they in fact demonstrate that they are unable to find any such consequences.”
“The CDC clearly documents the fact that it has no data to show a statistical increase in illnesses in those states that legalized sale. The real effect of changing these laws is to enhance the public health and increase the number of families that have access to wholesome, unprocessed milk with its vital nutrition and enzymes intact,” explains Fallon Morell.
A close examination of reports on illness associated with raw milk reveals that there are an average of 41 illnesses attributed to raw milk each year, of which about 23 are confirmed illnesses. According to a federal agency phone survey, 3.04 percent of the population consumes raw milk. The most recent figures from the CDC published in March 2013 report that there are an estimated 876,209 foodborne illnesses per year in the U.S.
“Using these figures, we might expect to see 26,637 foodborne illnesses per year among those people drinking raw milk” says Dr. Ted Beals, a retired pathologist who has made a study of raw milk safety. “Of those illnesses we see only about 41 illnesses per year attributed to the raw milk they drink. Only 0.2% of their illnesses attributed to all the foods they eat are associated with the raw milk they drink almost daily. These government numbers show us that raw milk is a very safe food.”
The report confirms that there have been no deaths from fluid raw milk over the period of the report. By contrast, three people died from pasteurized milk in Massachusetts in 2007. The government reports 15 deaths per year from raw oysters and 30 deaths per year from eggs. “Clearly government agencies are applying a double standard to raw milk, singling it out as ‘inherently dangerous’ when other foods obviously pose a greater threat to health,” says Fallon Morell.
“We don’t want anyone to get sick from raw milk,” says Fallon Morell, “and with reasonable management practices by farmers and consumers, we could reduce the number of illness even more than the extremely low numbers now experienced. Continued government opposition to freedom of choice is unproductive. Health officials need to acknowledge consumer demand for this nutritious food. Producer and consumer groups are capable of setting reasonable and effective standards. Health departments need to cease their entrenched antagonism and support both public and private measures that benefit raw milk safety. And when illnesses do occur, we need to take an unbiased look at what went wrong so that we can improve milk safety.”
The Weston A. Price Foundation is a Washington, DC-based nutrition education 501(c)(3) with the mission of disseminating science-based information on diet and health. Named after Weston A. Price, DDS, author of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, WAPF publishes a quarterly journal for its 15,000+ members, supports 572 local chapters worldwide and hosts a yearly international conference. Contact at (202) 363-4394, westonaprice.org, firstname.lastname@example.org.
(National Standard) A study found a lack of effect of short-term omega-3 supplementation on metabolic syndrome or markers of inflammation in relatively overweight but healthy young adults.
Metabolic syndrome is a group of conditions that occur together and may increase the risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes. Metabolic syndrome is often characterized by high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high cholesterol, and excess body fat around the waist.
Dietary sources of omega-3 fatty acids include fish oil and certain plant and nut oils. Fish oil contains both docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), while some nuts (such as English walnuts) and vegetable oils (such as canola, soybean, flaxseed, linseed, and olive oils) contain alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). There is evidence from multiple studies that suggests that DHA and EPA intake in the form of dietary fish or fish oil supplements lowers triglycerides; reduces the risk of death, heart attack, dangerous abnormal heart rhythms, and strokes in people with known cardiovascular disease; slows the buildup of arterial hardening, and lowers and lowers blood pressure slightly.
In the current study, researchers set out to determine whether these potential benefits of omega-3 may apply to a population of overweight young adults. They recruited people between the ages of 18-30 with body mass indices (BMIs) of 23 or greater. (Generally, a BMI between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight.) The participants randomly received either 1.7 grams of omega-3 or safflower oil placebo daily for four weeks. Researchers collected blood samples and looked at measures such as blood pressure, blood sugar, and levels of C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker.
The results showed that DHA and EPA concentrations increased in the omega-3 group over the course of the study. However, there was a lack of effect of omega-3 on measures of blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, cholesterol, and inflammation.
The researchers concluded that the lack of effect of omega-3 may be due to the short period of supplementation. Further study is needed before firm conclusions may be made on the possible benefits of fish oil in relatively overweight young adults.
Many integrative therapies have been evaluated for their potential benefits on weight loss and other related concerns in overweight and obese people. 5-HTP, chitosan, DHEA, Korean pine, mango seed fiber, and whey protein are all backed by good scientific evidence for their effects in reducing appetite and promoting weight loss.
- Natural Standard: The Authority on Integrative Medicine. www.naturalstandard.com
- Root M, Collier SR, Zwetsloot KA, et al. A randomized trial of fish oil omega-3 fatty acids on arterial health, inflammation, and metabolic syndrome in a young healthy population. Nutr J. 2013 Apr 8;12(1):40. [Epub ahead of print] View Abstract
Fourth Study To Show Tumor Link; Is This Really Prospective Epidemiology?
A new study from the U.K.
is adding support to the still controversial proposition that long-term use of a cell phone increases the risk of developing acoustic neuroma
, a tumor of the auditory nerve. No higher risk of glioma or meningioma, two types of brain cancer, was observed.
Women who used a mobile phone for more than ten years were two-and-half-times more likely to have an acoustic neuroma than those who never used a phone. The finding is based on a smaller number of cases than the brain tumor results but is statistically significant. The U.K. epidemiological study is the fourth to show an association between long-term use of a cell phone and acoustic neuroma.
"[W]e did find a trend of increasing risk of acoustic neuroma with increasing duration of mobile phone use," according to the team led by Victoria Benson
, Jane Green
and Valerie Beral
of the University of Oxford. IARC's Joachim Schüz
, an avowed tumor risk skeptic, is a coauthor. The trend of more tumors with more phone use is also statistically significant. The paper is being published by the International Journal of Epidemiology
; a copy was posted on its Web site on May 8th.
WIthout explanation, the increase in acoustic neuroma is omitted in the study conclusion presented in the published abstract. Only the lack of an association with brain cancer is reported there.
But perhaps the most controversial aspect of the new study is that it is being touted as "prospective." Prospective studies are considered superior to retrospective studies — such asInterphone
— because they do not rely on people's memories to estimate past exposures. The fear with retrospective studies is that subjects with tumors, eager to explain their condition, will overestimate their cell phone use and skew the results in favor an association. In a prospective study, subjects fill out regular questionnaires detailing phone use and other possible changes over the span of the study.
It is true that the women were recruited into the U.K. study population before they developed a tumor and would not have had any incentive to misreport their phone use. But, beyond that, nothing about monitoring their radiation exposure could be called prospective. The U.K. study offers scant improvement over past efforts.
Calling the new study prospective cuts two ways. On the one hand, it gives additional support to the finding of no brain cancer from cell phones, but, on the other hand, it lends greater credibility to the acoustic neuroma association. This might explain the absence of the observed acoustic neuroma risk in the conclusion.
Exposure Assessment: “Crude” and “Extremely Limited”
"The evidence presented is less than a slam dunk," said Joe Bowman
, an industrial hygienist with the U.S. NIOSH
, who worked on the Interphone study
. "The exposure assessment in the new study was pretty crude and no attempt was made to estimate radiation exposure," he toldMicrowave News
from his office in Cincinnati. "While it is better than in past retrospective studies in some ways, it is worse in others," he added. "For example, in Interphone, a user's entire phone history was obtained."
Cell phone use in the U.K. study was based on the answers to only one or two questions posed at the time the women were recruited for the study. They were asked, "About how often do you use a mobile phone?" and were given three options: "never," less than once a day" and "every day." Those who did use a cell phone were also asked "for how long?" At the end of the study in 2009, participants were asked two more questions about their cell phone use, but those answers were not used in the data analysis.
"The study has extremely limited exposure assessment," concurred Joel Moskowitz
, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In 2009, Moskowitz published a meta-analysis
pointing to a tumor risk from cell phones. In an interview, Moskowitz pointed out that the U.K. team had not collected any information on the use of cordless phones. "This could have been an important source of RF exposure," he said.
The Oxford paper also reports a higher than expected incidence of tumors of the pituitary gland
, but this increase is not statistically reliable.
For better posture on the toilet, try the Squatty Potty!
Available in 7" or 9" for all types of toilets.
More Recent Articles