Cow's Milk: A Substitute for Human Milk

(This article is from my recent blog entry on Green Options. Feel free to visit that page and add some supportive comments. According to a few comments up there now, some people are none too happy with my perspective. I do, however, think the photo they chose is really good.)

People often refer to non-dairy milks, such as soy and rice, as "alternatives to" or "substitutes for" cow’s milk, and the dairy industry scathingly calls them "imitation milks." By definition, the words "alternative" and "substitute" imply that the thing they are being measured against is the superior choice; that is, you choose the "substitute" when you can’t get the real thing, and so on.
However, I don’t like the use of these terms when referring to non-animal-based foods for a number of reasons. By all calculations, meat, dairy, and eggs are superior in no way – not in terms of health, not in terms of taste, and certainly not in terms of ethics. And if we step back for a moment, we’d see that animal foods are actually the alternatives to plant foods, and we’d remember that cow’s milk is actually a substitute for human milk.

ANIMAL PRODUCTS REPLACE PLANT FOODS
When animals were first herded and domesticated for human consumption, about 9,000-10,000 years ago, they essentially became the alternatives to plant foods. Plant foods were the foundation of the human diet for a long, long time - long before people started domesticating non-human animals. (READ: Plant foods were the foundation. I’m not saying humans didn’t eat "meat" at all.) Fast forward thousands of years to our own "modern" culture. With millions of dollars, the animal exploitation industries convinced people they need to consume the flesh and secretions of animals, and fruits, vegetables, beans, mushrooms, nuts, seeds, herbs, and spices were pushed off to the sidelines and sold as garnish, and meat, dairy, and eggs, with their powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill, enjoyed government support, subsidies, and protection.

Thanks to the dairy industry, whose government-sponsored advertisements pose as public service announcements, humans are continually sold the idea that we need cows’ milk to be healthy. This stuff is sold as if it contains some magical formula designed just for human bodies. The truth is it is a perfect formula, designed just for growing babies — bovine babies, that is.

HERDING ANIMALS - DUPING HUMANS
Cattle are herd animals, which means they are easy to control because they move together and stay together. In other words, "cattle" meet certain requirements that make it easy for humans to contain them. Let’s not kid ourselves into believing that humans struck nutritional gold when they started drinking cows’ milk. Cows’ milk — just like soda — is a commercial product that is sold to the public by the dairy industry that has billions of dollars behind it in advertising and enjoys government protection from false advertising laws.* Whether it’s cow’s milk, goat’s milk, sheep’s milk, buffalo’s milk, rat’s milk, or dog’s milk, it is totally unnecessary for human survival and health.

Not only are we the only animal that drinks another animal’s milk, we are the only animal that drinks it into adulthood. All female mammals produce milk for the same reason: to feed and nourish their offspring. At a certain age, depending on the mammal, the infant is able to move onto solid food and is weaned off of the mother’s milk — every mammal, that is, except humans.

Despite the fact that humans don’t continue drinking human milk after being weaned, we’re told we have to drink cows’ milk. And despite the fact that calves naturally stop drinking cows’ milk after they’re weaned, humans have been duped into believing that they must drink it as adults. Our own physiology supports the cessation of milk-drinking in that - at about time time when we should be weaned off of breast milk - our bodies stop producing lactase, the enzyme that enables us to digest lactose, the sugar that’s in mammalian milk. One of the reasons the majority of the world population suffers from lactose intolerance is because we’re not able to digest it. Drinking milk - human or otherwise - into adulthood makes absolutely no sense, but it makes really good business and very good money.

TAKING BACK THE WORD

The dairy industry has made attempts to own the word "milk" and stop non-dairy milk companies from using the word; they loathe the use of the word "milk" in any other context outside of that which refers to the stuff they take from cows and sell to humans. (Perhaps they would prefer human women to say "breast beverage" instead of "breast milk.") Besides referring to the fluid that a female produces when she is lactating, the word "milk" also refers to the liquid extracted from various plants, whether they are nuts, grains, seeds, or fruits. Many of these milks have been around for thousands of years in different parts of the world. The milk from these plants are hardly "alternatives." Rather, they stand on their own as delicious and much healthier choices for human consumption.

SOY
Soy milk originated in China, a region where the soybean was native and used as food long before the existence of written records. Later on, the soybean and soybean foods were transplanted to Japan. Soy milk is reputed to have been discovered and developed in the Han Dynasty in China about 164 B.C. Cow’s milk is definitely the "alternative" to soy milk, particularly in the East. Sadly and ironically, however, the consuption of cow’s milk now exceeds that of soy milk in Japan. The advertising arms of the North American dairy industry reach far and wide.

RICE
If you’ve ever been to a traditional Mexican restaurant, you’ve had the pleasure of imbibing Horchata, a delicious sweet beverage made primarily of rice, sugar, and cinnamon – and often almonds. The Mexican Horchata is based on the Spanish Horchata de Chufa, which was traditionally made from a grassy plant called the Chufa or tiger nut and has its origin in ancient Egypt and Sudan.

NUT
Almond milk – by far my favorite! – was used widely in the Middle Ages in regions stretching from the Iberian Peninsula to East Asia. It was prized for its high protein content and its ability to keep better than milk from animals, which soured if it wasn’t used right away. Milk derived from other nuts also has a long history, including that of walnut, cashews, peanuts, macadamia, and hazelnuts.

COCONUT
The milk of the young coconut is referred to as coconut water or coconut juice and is absolutely delicious and drunk as a beverage. It’s been a popular drink in the tropics since the discovery of the coconut palm tree! (Early Sanskrit writings reveal that the people of India were using coconuts as a staple for food.) It’s naturally fat-free and low in calories with high nutrition content. (Coconut milk is the thick sweet, milky white substance derived from the meat of a mature coconut and is often used for cooking and not for drinking.)

FOLLOWING THE COWS’ LEAD
The bottom line is we have no nutritional requirement for the milk of another animal. Though we have nutritional requirements for nutrients such as calcium, we can do what the cows do and get our minerals from the green leafy stuff that grows in the ground. That news, however, hasn’t quite made its way to our living rooms and classrooms. The kale growers don’t seem to have the money for multi-million-dollar ad campaigns (got kale?); the chard lobby has yet to be formed; and the broccoli farmers just haven’t gotten around to producing glossy marketing materials (I mean - "educational" materials) for young children in school to compete with those that the dairy industry have been supplying to teachers for decades. Get them while they’re young, and you’ve got them for life.

Though humans have been drinking the milk of animals for thousands of years, there is enough evidence now to support the detrimental effects it has on our bodies. Just because we’re in the habit of doing something doesn’t mean we should continue. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should.

(*The California Milk Advisory Board was sued by animal advocates and organizations for falsely representing the condition and treatment of dairy cows in the state. Because the California Milk Advistory Board is the marketing arm of the California Department of Agriculture and thus a government agency, it is exempt from false-advertising laws. The case was thrown out, but not before the judge acknowledged that California cows "probably aren’t happy and that if the ads implying that they were happy had been made by a private individual, false-advertising laws might apply.")

*Listen to my podcast episode on my favorite non-dairy milks.

Early Humans = Vegetarian Prey Animals

A new article in Newsweek (called "Beyond Stones & Bones: The new science of the brain and DNA is rewriting the history of human origins" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/) dispels (once again) the myth that early humans were meat-eaters. Faulty evidence, specious speculations, male-dominated anthropology studies, and a denial that humans were actually the prey and not the predator - all perpetuated the myth that our early evolutionary selves were macho meat-eaters and hunters.

I've said many times before, particularly in response to people like Michael Pollan, who insist that if we don't eat meat we're "denying our evolutionary heritage," that even though that's STILL not a good enough reason to keep eating animals, we never seem to remember that we came AFTER the large predatory animals - as food for them!

Thanks to this article, the new studies it refers to, and a revised exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History, Michael Pollan can begin to eat his words. Here's an excerpt from the article:

“They [one early species in our evolution] had small teeth good for fruits and nuts, but not meat. (The available prey was enough to make one a confirmed vegetarian: hyenas the size of bears, saber-toothed cats and other mega-reptiles and raptors.) That suggests that early humans were more often prey than predators, says anthropologist Robert Sussman of Washington University, coauthor of the 2005 book "Man the Hunted." The evidence is as stark as the many fossil skulls containing holes made by big cats and talon marks from raptors.

The realization that early humans were the hunted and not hunters has upended traditional ideas about what it takes for a species to thrive. For decades the reigning view had been that hunting prowess and the ability to vanquish competitors was the key to our ancestors' evolutionary success (an idea fostered, critics now say, by the male domination of anthropology during most of the 20th century). But prey species do not owe their survival to anything of the sort, argues Sussman. Instead, they rely on their wits and, especially, social skills to survive. Being hunted brought evolutionary pressure on our ancestors to cooperate and live in cohesive groups. That, more than aggression and warfare, is our evolutionary legacy.”

I really encourage people to feel confident enough to debunk the myths about eating a plant-based diet. Even if we couldn't demonstrate that early humans were meat-eaters (I really do think the point is moot), we have all the reasons and resources in the world to eat low on the food chain and do so healthfully and confidently. But because there are so many - both high- and low-profile people - using our early ancestry as a *reason* to eat animals, I think it's important to respond with the type of research outlined in this article.

Eating Animals

To the animals, it’s all the same. They want to live. If they have wings, they want to fly. If they have legs, they want to walk. If they have voices, they want to communicate. If they have offspring, they want to mother them. To humans who perceive animals as inferior, their lives are here for us to end, their wings and legs are ours to eat, their voices are ours to silence or ignore, and their reproductive cycles are ours to manipulate and use. It’s not the animals but our perception of the animals that enables us to do all sorts of horrific things to them. As with any kind of prejudice, first you have to lower the societal status of the group or individual before you can actually oppress them, and we do this with animals across the board: in the language we use that denigrates them (calling people pigs, calling animals dirty), in the rights and natural behaviors we deny them, in the place we’ve carved out for them in society, making them tools for research, clowns for our enjoyment, delicacies for our palates, and victims of our desires. This dynamic is so ingrained. We learn it at such a young age, and we’re considered quite radical if we question it at all. And we think all the world thinks and acts as we do.

We never stop to consider that our perceptions and treatment of non-human animals is culturally based. Period. Our cultural and personal and familial habits inform so much of what we do on a daily basis. It’s why any talk of the "necessity" of eating animal flesh is balderdash. It has nothing to do with our biologic makeup and everything to do with our cultural foundation, taste habits, and, frankly, our arrogance, the arrogance of the human species. But let's talk about cultural habits for now.

As westerners, most of us were raised eating the dismembered and scorched bodies – otherwise known as meat – of pigs, cows, calves, chickens, fishes, ducks, lambs, and turkeys. Despite the fact that these animals suffered and were killed to satisfy our appetites, many of us draw an arbitrary line and turn our noses up at the people who eat other animals that may not have been on our own dinner plates: animals such as deer, rabbit, or buffalo. People get upset at the thought of eating precious bunny rabbits, as they munch on the leg of what was once a precious calf or baby chick. With even greater indignance we’re shocked at the (also western) cultures who eat horses and goats, and our stomachs turn at the idea of eating frog’s legs, chicken’s feet, cow’s tongues, and monkey’s brains. And with what can be characterized as approval of our own speciesism, we scorn those who eat cats and dogs.

“Can you believe that?” Some people have said to me. “That’s just so upsetting – cats and dogs? I mean really!.” Is something I often hear. And I attempt to mirror the hypocrisy of their remark by saying: “You know what I heard? I heard people eat the shoulders of pigs and the wings of birds! Can you believe that?” OK it doesn’t have the same shock value, but it would if that person lived in a place where that was unheard of. In the workshops I teach, do an exercise that works quite effectively to get this across. I give the group a handout that talks about the growing number of farms raising dogs for their milk, about how this is a growing trend that’s popular in different parts of the world. People get outraged. They get really upset to hear about the female dogs in confinement, chained up, made and kept pregnant so they will keep lactating, taking away the babies so humans can have the dogs’ milk, etc. After everyone records their reactions, I reveal that the article was really about goat’s milk before I replaced all the references to goats with the word “dog.” It’s at that moment that everyone feels the impact of their reactions. They begin to question why they reacted so strongly when they thought it was about dogs and that they don’t think twice about drinking cow’s milk (and now goat’s milk and sheep’s milk, which are being touted as necessary health food for humans). It’s a powerful exercise, and it’s hard to do, because it’s so hard to look at the world through a different lens. But it’s what we need to do to see the absurdity of our choices.

In writing these podcasts and the essays for my newsletter (also called Food for Thought, which you can subscribe to at compassionatecooks.com), it’s always a struggle finding the words and the photos that will be effective enough without turning people off. The photos of dogs and cats raised for their flesh in parts of Asia (particularly Korea and China) are so horrific for people, because they’ve never seen dogs and cats in such gruesome circumstances. It’s the way most of us react when we first see the animals we kill and eat in this country, but it’s a little more upsetting I think, because most people haven’t had personal relationships with pigs, cattle, chickens, turkeys, etc. I can understand having a strong reaction. I really can. But I also think it’s important we recognize that the deep roots of our desensitization enable us to allow animals here to be imprisoned, confined, denied, abused, and tortured so that we can satisfy a palate preference, whether that preference is for the legs and wings of chickens, the backsides of pigs, or the sides of cows. – it comes down to the cultural habit that has been ingrained in us. The dogs and cats, the goats and horses – they’re all cultural habits of other countries. Just as some cultures or religions choose vegetarian – it’s all cultural. It has nothing to do with biology. If we can remember that, perhaps we wouldn’t be so quick to judge other cultures but would instead rise up to oppose what we do in our own.

On the other hand, I don’t believe culture, tradition, or religion are adequate excuses for cruelty. Dr. Albert Schweitzer, the great humanitarian wrote, “The thinking [person] must oppose all cruel customs no matter how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo. When we have a choice, we must avoid bringing torment and injury into the life of another.” I couldn’t agree more or have said it more eloquently. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. Just because we’ve always done something doesn’t mean it’s the best thing or the right thing to do. And when we know better, we can choose better.

To the animals, it’s all the same. Whether they meow, snort, bark, winny, moo, quack, gobble, hop, fly, swim, or run, they all feel pain, loss, and fear. A Korean dog wants to live and resists death as much as an American duck. To the animals kept and killed for human pleasure, it’s all the same.— the loneliness, the pain, the screams, the darkness, the torment, the fear, the cold, the heat, the untreated illnesses, the longing, the frustration, the boredom, the desire to flee, the desire to live. When we can recognize that we share all of this with non-human animals, perhaps we’d reconsider the choices we make on a daily basis. Consider this – they’re all habits, and habits were meant to be broken. It takes three weeks to break old and form new habits. There’s no reason – only excuses – not to at least try.

You Say "Blood" - I Say "Au Jus"

I just read an article about how the heat in California is causing "animal farmers" to suffer. Oh no - don't worry. They're not suffering from the heat. They have air conditioners to keep themselves nice and cool. They're suffering because their "livestock" is dying - from the 100-degree temperatures we've been experiencing. Most "beef cattle" aren't given shelter from the blazing hot sun, and with California being the #1 dairy state (Sorry Wisconsin!), thousands of cows are falling over (also without shelter), "creating a backlog of rotting carcasses," according to the authorities. There is a "backlog" because they don't have enough places to "properly dispose of dead animals." It makes sense when you think about it, because the vessels into which they would normally dispose of the "carcasses" (how come they can use that word??) are our own tummies! So, I have a solution for everyone!

Since some people insist that we must eat animals in order to survive (I wonder if that makes me some kind of miracle!), I figure they can have breakfast, lunch, and dinner - with a few meals in between - if they brought a fork and knife to these dairy farms. It would solve the farmer's problems (you can pay them a small fee for your meal), the abundant carcass problem, and the hunger problem all at the same time. I guess the only problem is we'll have to change the name from rotting carcass to something else, like cow flambe or specialdu jour . I mean - when it's a cow that dropped dead from the heat or an unfortunate squirrel who happened to run into a car, it's a "carcass," but if it's something we desire to put in our mouths, it's called "dinner." We're such funny little birds, we humans. It tickles me to no end.

All sarcasm aside, my heart goes out to every life that's ended for our appetites (and I'm responsible for many myself). The annual body count of animals killed for human consumption is, according to the USDA, over 10 billion in the U.S. alone. That number doesn't even include the fatalities I mentioned above or those who die en route to slaughter and on factory farms. Each and every one of those individuals was denied dignity in life and dignity in death. Any of us who live with animals do everything we can to keep them safe. In terms of their ability to feel pain and suffering, there is no difference between "beef cattle," "dairy cows," and my own cats. The only difference is our perception of these animals. We split our hearts by valuing one animal for his or her own sake and another for the taste of her flesh or milk or the profit he/she brings.

Whether it's a natural disaster or a humanmade war, whenever deaths are reported, the animals are virtually ignored. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the treatment of displaced animals during a crisis is being taken seriously, but sadly, if you listen to the rhetoric, it's still not for the animals' sake. It's for the humans. Yes, I suppose that's better than nothing at all, but I truly believe that until we change our perception of animals, absolutely nothing will change in our treatment of them. Where our minds are prejuiced, so will our behavior reflect that bias.
For every person who eschews eating animals, lives are literally saved. If we are saddened by the death of an animal on the side of the road or from a natural catastrophe, then we can offset that misery by changing our eating habits. Eating vegetarian is a powerful way to live. It means we can look animals - and ourselves - right in the eye. No guilt, no shame, no blood. Did I say blood? I'm sorry - I meant au jus. Ah, the language of denial. Ya gotta love it.

Hypothetical Hype

Those of you familiar with my regular essays and podcasts know that one of my favorite pastimes is to respond to the myths about animals rights and vegetarianism. We create so many justifications to continue eating animals that we don't even notice that most of them don't even reflect reality; they're just hypothetical scenarios that enable us to hold fast to a particular perception of ourselves. I remember creating one or two myself before I thought long and hard about what I was contributing to. When I got really honest with myself about how lame my excuses were, I stopped - eating animals and making excuses. That decision was the best one I ever made, and it has filled my life with meaning and purpose.

So here is one of my favorites. I'll feature more in the coming weeks.

-"I don't have a problem with animals being killed for food, but I don't want to support the torture and abuse that take place on factory farms. In fact, I think I could even humanely kill my own animals to cause the least amount of suffering." I realize there are people who feel this way, and though I disagree with the premise (because I, personally, do have a problem with animals being killed for human consumption), that's not my issue with this statement. My problem has to do with the fact that it rests on hypotheticals:

1. This person isn't raising and killing her own animals, and by virtue of that, she is, unfortunately, contributing to the abuse and torture of animals.

2. What people don't realize is that even on the most idealized farms, animals are not lovingly and "humanely euthanized" when they're fat enough for the dinner table. They are sent to the same dirty slaughterhouses as "conventionally raised" animals. It's not legal for ranchers to kill their own animals (unless they're going to eat them themselves) and sell them to the public. The transportation alone is incredibly stressful (and often fatal) for the animals, and the slaughterhouse itself is a place of fear, pain, blood, and death.

3. I have seen what would be considered "humane slaughter," all I saw was an animal struggling to fight for her life. She did not want to die. She did not want her head removed. She did not want the blade to touch her body. As the blood drained from her, all I could remember was that line in Tim Robbins' film Dead Man Walking, when Sister Prejean lamented at how "calculated" the killing [of the deathrow inmate] was. The systematic execution of human beings is no different than that of animals - even in the most "idealized" situation, it is still messy, bloody, deliberate, painful, and unnecessary.

When we rely on hypotheticals to justify real-life situations, it is only because we want to hold onto a perception of ourselves that may or may not be true. I don't believe any of us want to consciously and willingly contribute to abuse or torture. But, there just isn't any way of getting around it when we eat meat. If we can't tell ourselves the truth about what we're supporting, then we need to ask ourselves what we're avoiding. Until then, we're not living in Truth - neither our own or that of the real world.

Those of us who have stopped eating animals aren't off the hook, either. Every time we hear someone justifying eating animals, we have an opportunity to reflect the truth. There are gentle, respectful ways of doing this, but there is no question that we must do it. The animals need us as their voice. If not you, then who?