Some non-dairy milks are labeled "not a substitute for infant formula". This is important because infants fed them in place of formula or breast milk have suffered severe malnutrition and even died. Babies' and small children's nutritional requirements are different from adults'.
This study is looking at "children aged two to six" (ages at which formula or breast milk would no longer be necessary to sustain life), and the article highlights that non-dairy milks' nutritional content is different from dairy milk, which may have developmental consequences. One possibility is that non-dairy milk meant to consumption by small children should be fortified more (or differently), or that vegan diets for children commonly require more supplementation. I think there's evidence that fortification of dairy milk has had great health benefits, while apparently for particular purposes non-dairy milks are starting out at a disadvantage even if they have some health benefits in other ways.
In the course of my first decade of veganism, I developed significant D and B₁₂ deficiencies which I've recently successfully cured with dietary supplements. I don't think that vegan advocates will do ourselves or our cause any favors by pretending that these deficiencies are rare or difficult to acquire; in fact, they're relatively common and often associated with a vegan diet. (I'm thinking of all the effort that John Robbins spent pointing out that adults can easily get adequate proteins and amino acids from vegetable sources, because this is something people reflexively call into doubt. From what I've heard since, I think he was right on that point, but the same can't be said for B₁₂!) The good news is that these deficiencies also easy to detect and, for many people, they're also easy to cure.
When we're talking about childhood nutrition, the stakes are higher, and it's essential to be better informed and more attentive. A few years of deficiency in these vitamins in my 30s has probably not hurt me for the long run, but it might be a different story if the same thing had happened when I was three or four.
I think it's very possible to raise dairy cows without stress. Of course you have to milk some dairy cows or their bladder will get sore (and maybe burst).
It's possible to do a lot better than we do when slaughtering; but even with the best methods there's going to be up to a second of bewilderment if not pain and terror.
There is a farm near where I lived some times ago, in France south west, where the cows are choosing when they want to be milked (assuming it's the good word for it).
The farmers owned 2 or 3 machines where the cow goes when it wants to give milk, and get out whenever it feels about it.
You've missed out the bit where cows only produce milk for their young to drink, and so you need to keep breeding these milk cows.
You get a bunch of calves. Half of those are female, and go to replace the older dairy herd, which are killed. The other half are male, and there's no use for male dairy calves, and so they're all killed while quite young.
The selective breeding of dairy cattle has caused some genetic problems with modern cows.
All of this applies to the free range end of dairy farming.
This selective breeding has gone on for thousands of years. Cows used to be much, much larger, unintuitively, which made them more difficult to manage. It's disingenuous to attribute their current make-up almost entirely to recent standards of breeding - they are a domesticated species, meaning they effectively evolved alongside humans.
I imagine there is a way to raise a cow for beef that I find ethical. I don't know if you can do so for dairy cows. As far as I know, the cow has to have young to lactate, meaning it must be impregnated frequently. Am I wrong?
This is in constrast with chicken eggs, which I believe can be ethically produced (even though they aren't in the large majority of the industry).
Yeah but I wouldn't replace with it with soy/almond. I'd use -- well almost anything else. Water. Mashed vegetables and fruit. Some milk products such as yoghurt/whey/buttermilk/quark.
> while apparently for particular purposes non-dairy milks are starting out at a disadvantage even if they have some health benefits in other ways
It's almost like alternative milks have around 30 calories per cup and real milk has 160 calories. That's a huge difference because you're likely to give your child "a glass of milk", not ask them to drink 5 glasses because the alt milk has basically no nutritional value.
Source: my gf swears by alt milks so I have a fridge full of them. I borrow them sometimes when I run out of real milk.
PS: Yes I'm comparing to "full" fat 3.5% milk. Not that watered down stuff that seems to be super popular for some reason. And while I'd love to use real full fat milk, 3.5% is the most I have easy access to in the absence of owning a cow.
It varies quite a bit: Silk Unsweetened Almondmilk is 30 kcal/cup, while their Unsweetened Soymilk is 80 kcal/cup (still less than dairy milk, but by a factor of 2 instead of over 5). As maxerickson pointed out, sweetened ones also have more calories, but that's not necessarily a great nutritional improvement (e.g., Silk Chocolate Soymilk is 120 kcal/cup, with a whole bunch of refined sugar in there).
I think you can choose a nutrition profile quite a bit closer to dairy milk in many respects if you specifically want to, but it's going to depend on how your particular product was processed, sweetened, and fortified.
Just to be clearer on the B₁₂ point, it is possible to get B₁₂ from vegan sources, but not readily from vegetables or other plants. Vegan B₁₂ comes from cultured micro-organisms, and vegans who don't supplement it will generally be deficient, as I was.
Is shorter always bad? With all the growth hormones given to cows it'd make sense some would go through to the milk and likely affect kids, wouldn't really be a good thing...
i don't think a kid being shorter in general is bad but if the average is going down it points to some sort of malnutrition. And by the way, mothers aren't given growth hormone. Also there is no proof of significant GH levels in cows milk or else every pro athlete would drink it constantly.
Growth hormone is a peptide. Heat denatures peptides, and our digestive tract is specifically designed to break them down into their constituent amino acids.
Artificial growth hormones may be banned, but endogenous ones[0] are unavoidable. Cow's milk evolved to make calves grow, this is not an avoidable minutia when attempting to comparatively characterize milk alternatives as stunting growth, but likely the central finding.
You didn't understand GP comment. Cow's milk is the single thing that grows calves hundreds of Kg in a few months. It has growing hormones in it, naturally.
7 feet is in the range where you'll encounter daily inconveniences for being tall - from having difficulty finding clothes and shoes that fit, to always having to duck your head, to having feet always sticking off the end of the bed, to having to squash in to bus, plane and car seats - or you'll have to pay a premium to avoid such things.
I'm 6'3 and still get that to some degree. I like being this tall, but I think 6'1 or 6'2 are probably around the ideal height to reap the benefits of being tall, without being too affected by the drawbacks.
This would likely be largely dependent on your birthdate. At various eras, the structure of NBA contracts and the collective bargaining agreement would have a large impact on your expected earnings. There's a window of time in which virtually anyone seven feet or over who could walk and chew bubblegum at the same time could have a very high chance of earning serious money as an NBA center, even with minimal skills[1]. If you came of age in the salad days of ridiculous rookie contracts, after the NBA had exploded in popularity and TV and advertising money ballooned salaries, and the newer, cheaper, rookie contract scales had yet to come into effect, this very well could be valid tradeoff.
Canadian diary industry is very different from the US, so it's not obvious that you'd find hormones in the milk (there are per cow milk production quotas). Certainly not in the quantities found in US milk.
(The national post had a great series of articles about it. The Canadian newspaper sided with Trump against Canada's diary industry.)
Btw, Milk costs double in Canada than in the states. Tastes better though (well sour cream and yoghurt do. I hate milk). On the other hand cheese is much better in the states cause I can afford the European stuff here (100% import tarriff???) and there is more diversity in aisles.
As to the hormone part of my OP, no claim, at least no strong claim, was made. I just pointed out that, if your production is restricted, it doesn't make sense to pump your cows full of hormones.
Canadian diary industry is very different from the US, so it's not obvious that you'd find hormones in the milk (there are per cow milk production quotas). Certainly not in the quantities found in US milk.
Take it anecdotically or not. My two daughters almost never consumed milk because of allergies and have an average height and will be taller than their past generations women.
I don't think so. Have you read https://www.gwern.net ? Also scientific research is validated much later with different studies, including meta-analysis studies.
Another anecdote ... my son has always been a big milk drinker and is taller than any relative in the last two generations (and well fed besides - he loves his broccoli!)
The average height has been increasing steadily all over the world for the last century or so, perhaps since industrialization. Though malnourishment played a part in not letting people reach their genetic potential in height, there is evidence linking taller heights with disease such as cancer and shorter lifespans.
I do not think it has been conclusively proven that taller statures are desirable. I would think adequate nutrient intake from a variety of food sources that leads to a sufficient and healthy height would be better than attempting to maximize for greater height at the expense of health in later years.
I agree that height does not necessarily mean that an individual will be stronger / fitter / longer living. In-fact, being tall may play against these.
That said, no girl I've ever met has ever said, "wow, I really prefer to date short men". Perhaps some of them have said, "he's too tall", but most of them prefer tall men.
Most men that I know tend to prefer women shorter than them. And yes, some of them have said, "she's too short".
So, while more height in men may be inversely correlated to health, it is certainly desired among the multi-ethnic multi-economic cross-section of people with whom the topic of height has come up in conversation.
It's sort of criminal that they're even allowed to label bean juice as milk.
Im not 100% convinced of the necessity of drinking milk or that height is particularly a good proxy for health as a metric.
But vegans should be under no illusions that almond milk or soy milk is any kind of milk substitute. And if they're giving it to infants instead of breastfeeding or formula, it's borderline neglect.
I think that there a valid uses for them - soy milk is good for lower calorie lattes for example, and almond milk is delicious in oatmeal. But as a source of nutrition for growing children, they're pretty poor.
> But vegans should be under no illusions that almond milk or soy milk is any kind of milk substitute.
When it comes to feeding infants, sure, but my usage of soy milk as an adult is definitely as a substitute for milk. I use it in virtually all the places cow's milk is typically used: in my cereal, coffee, mixed with chocolate syrup, in most recipes that call for milk.... No need to get so up in arms about call things like soy milk a "milk" drink/substitute. In the vast majority of cases, it functions exactly the same.
"Milk" has been a generic term ever since coconut milk has existed.
Heck, Wiktionary even cites 14th and 15th century uses of the term "almond milk". [1]
Not to mention "milk of magnesia", which isn't even a foodstuff.
Just because you personally have not heard the non-dairy sense used until recently does not mean it is incorrect or should be "illegal" as the GP suggests.
I don't think it's reasonable to say "often". It seems like known cases were heavily covered in the press and involved criminal prosecutions. From what I can see, it seems to have been running around one death per year in developed countries.
I agree that it's clearly a life-threatening risk to give babies vegetable milk as a substitute for breastfeeding or formula.
The number of deaths from malnutrition in developed countries is also very low. The cases that don't have an underlying biological cause are going to come down to parental behavior and beliefs.
Almond milk has been called almond milk for at least a thousand years. Check out any cookbook for Catholics during Lent, or ask anyone who's into Renaissance-and-earlier-era cooking.
Lumping all of soy, rice, almond, goat milk as "non-cow" is pretty unfair to goat milk.
Does their study indicate all milks in "other" independently showed similar difference in height of 1.5cm? Or are they saying the average for all other was -1.5cm in which case maybe kids on almond milk were -2cm and breast milk +1cm? And goat's milk some third number? My strong hunch is it is the latter in which case the 1.5cm is completely meaningless.
Here is another clue, the one example they give of nutritional differences cites soy milk's low protein while failing to mention that goat's milk has more protein than cow's milk.
Didn't read the original research but either the research is bad and possibly biased or this is very misleading reporting.
[edit] removed mention of breast milk since article didn't say that
Thank you! How did anyone think it was a valid metric to lump goat's milk in with fake milks (plant-based milk substitutes)? Did they break this down further?
Then the study should have omitted any reference to Goat milk at all. Why did they just include Diet Coke on the list and then afterward say there wasn't enough data to exclude it? Still seems like bs.
The girl pictured (blue eyed, fair hair) is especially suited to cow's milk - it's in her genes. That's how people were able to live north of certain latitudes; by cattle meat and milk.
>IGF-1 promotes undesirable growth too—like cancer growth and accelerated aging. IGF-1 is one of the most powerful promoters of cancer growth ever discovered for cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, and colon.6 Overstimulation of growth by IGF-1 leads to premature aging too—and reducing IGF-1 levels is “anti-aging.”7
Your regular reminder that it's almost never worth it to pay attention to one single study, because of publication bias, lack of multiple hypothesis correction, and the many other ways for a study -- even one performed to best practices -- to be incorrect.
Wait for the meta-study, especially if the result is at all topical or exciting.
There is this article[0] from 21 hours ago that mentions that children should eat an egg a day to grow taller. Childrens height has surely been a popular topic the last 24 hours.
The title is a bit misleading. Those 3-year-olds are 1.5cm shorter than average growth percentile. It doesn't mention the effect on adolescent height on the same diet, since most adult growth spurt happens on teenager age.
I've read somewhere that cow milk accelerates growth in the first few years but the other children will eventually catch up. We would need a longer study to validated this.
75 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadThis study is looking at "children aged two to six" (ages at which formula or breast milk would no longer be necessary to sustain life), and the article highlights that non-dairy milks' nutritional content is different from dairy milk, which may have developmental consequences. One possibility is that non-dairy milk meant to consumption by small children should be fortified more (or differently), or that vegan diets for children commonly require more supplementation. I think there's evidence that fortification of dairy milk has had great health benefits, while apparently for particular purposes non-dairy milks are starting out at a disadvantage even if they have some health benefits in other ways.
In the course of my first decade of veganism, I developed significant D and B₁₂ deficiencies which I've recently successfully cured with dietary supplements. I don't think that vegan advocates will do ourselves or our cause any favors by pretending that these deficiencies are rare or difficult to acquire; in fact, they're relatively common and often associated with a vegan diet. (I'm thinking of all the effort that John Robbins spent pointing out that adults can easily get adequate proteins and amino acids from vegetable sources, because this is something people reflexively call into doubt. From what I've heard since, I think he was right on that point, but the same can't be said for B₁₂!) The good news is that these deficiencies also easy to detect and, for many people, they're also easy to cure.
When we're talking about childhood nutrition, the stakes are higher, and it's essential to be better informed and more attentive. A few years of deficiency in these vitamins in my 30s has probably not hurt me for the long run, but it might be a different story if the same thing had happened when I was three or four.
But almond or soy instead of cow's milk? That's nuts.
[hah pun not intended]
It's possible to do a lot better than we do when slaughtering; but even with the best methods there's going to be up to a second of bewilderment if not pain and terror.
The farmers owned 2 or 3 machines where the cow goes when it wants to give milk, and get out whenever it feels about it.
There's a video on their website where you can see it http://www.lafermeduramier.fr
The cows can go outside whenever they want and sleep on some kind of mattress.
I think they're having quite a cool life
You get a bunch of calves. Half of those are female, and go to replace the older dairy herd, which are killed. The other half are male, and there's no use for male dairy calves, and so they're all killed while quite young.
The selective breeding of dairy cattle has caused some genetic problems with modern cows.
All of this applies to the free range end of dairy farming.
This is in constrast with chicken eggs, which I believe can be ethically produced (even though they aren't in the large majority of the industry).
It's almost like alternative milks have around 30 calories per cup and real milk has 160 calories. That's a huge difference because you're likely to give your child "a glass of milk", not ask them to drink 5 glasses because the alt milk has basically no nutritional value.
Source: my gf swears by alt milks so I have a fridge full of them. I borrow them sometimes when I run out of real milk.
PS: Yes I'm comparing to "full" fat 3.5% milk. Not that watered down stuff that seems to be super popular for some reason. And while I'd love to use real full fat milk, 3.5% is the most I have easy access to in the absence of owning a cow.
Cows milk also has quite a lot more protein than most alternative milks.
You could add cream to your milk.
I think you can choose a nutrition profile quite a bit closer to dairy milk in many respects if you specifically want to, but it's going to depend on how your particular product was processed, sweetened, and fortified.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin
Furthermore Canada has milk production quotas so, depending how they're set, hormones might not be necessary to max production at all.
I'm 6'3 and still get that to some degree. I like being this tall, but I think 6'1 or 6'2 are probably around the ideal height to reap the benefits of being tall, without being too affected by the drawbacks.
edit: bad math not 2.5 billion, still 25 million is not bad, I take it in exchange of 1 foot 7in.
[1] http://www.truthaboutit.net/2012/05/true-or-false-half-of-al...
Canadian diary industry is very different from the US, so it's not obvious that you'd find hormones in the milk (there are per cow milk production quotas). Certainly not in the quantities found in US milk.
But here's wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_farming_in_Canada
(The national post had a great series of articles about it. The Canadian newspaper sided with Trump against Canada's diary industry.)
Btw, Milk costs double in Canada than in the states. Tastes better though (well sour cream and yoghurt do. I hate milk). On the other hand cheese is much better in the states cause I can afford the European stuff here (100% import tarriff???) and there is more diversity in aisles.
As to the hormone part of my OP, no claim, at least no strong claim, was made. I just pointed out that, if your production is restricted, it doesn't make sense to pump your cows full of hormones.
Canadian diary industry is very different from the US, so it's not obvious that you'd find hormones in the milk (there are per cow milk production quotas). Certainly not in the quantities found in US milk.
I do not think it has been conclusively proven that taller statures are desirable. I would think adequate nutrient intake from a variety of food sources that leads to a sufficient and healthy height would be better than attempting to maximize for greater height at the expense of health in later years.
Not conclusively proven but there have been studies done that suggest taller people earn more money [0].
Taller people are also generally considered more attractive.
So there are at least 2 factors where taller people have an advantage in life.
0: http://www.businessinsider.com/tall-people-are-richer-and-su...
That said, no girl I've ever met has ever said, "wow, I really prefer to date short men". Perhaps some of them have said, "he's too tall", but most of them prefer tall men.
Most men that I know tend to prefer women shorter than them. And yes, some of them have said, "she's too short".
So, while more height in men may be inversely correlated to health, it is certainly desired among the multi-ethnic multi-economic cross-section of people with whom the topic of height has come up in conversation.
Im not 100% convinced of the necessity of drinking milk or that height is particularly a good proxy for health as a metric.
But vegans should be under no illusions that almond milk or soy milk is any kind of milk substitute. And if they're giving it to infants instead of breastfeeding or formula, it's borderline neglect.
I think that there a valid uses for them - soy milk is good for lower calorie lattes for example, and almond milk is delicious in oatmeal. But as a source of nutrition for growing children, they're pretty poor.
When it comes to feeding infants, sure, but my usage of soy milk as an adult is definitely as a substitute for milk. I use it in virtually all the places cow's milk is typically used: in my cereal, coffee, mixed with chocolate syrup, in most recipes that call for milk.... No need to get so up in arms about call things like soy milk a "milk" drink/substitute. In the vast majority of cases, it functions exactly the same.
Heck, Wiktionary even cites 14th and 15th century uses of the term "almond milk". [1]
Not to mention "milk of magnesia", which isn't even a foodstuff.
Just because you personally have not heard the non-dairy sense used until recently does not mean it is incorrect or should be "illegal" as the GP suggests.
[1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/milk
Nothing borderline about it. Babies still die of malnutrition in developed countries, when it happens it is often from vegan diets.
I don't think that various vegetable derived products having "milk" in their names is the biggest part of the problem though.
I agree that it's clearly a life-threatening risk to give babies vegetable milk as a substitute for breastfeeding or formula.
The number of deaths from malnutrition in developed countries is also very low. The cases that don't have an underlying biological cause are going to come down to parental behavior and beliefs.
?? That's not what the article is about. They are talking about older children and comparing to cow milk, not formula.
Does their study indicate all milks in "other" independently showed similar difference in height of 1.5cm? Or are they saying the average for all other was -1.5cm in which case maybe kids on almond milk were -2cm and breast milk +1cm? And goat's milk some third number? My strong hunch is it is the latter in which case the 1.5cm is completely meaningless.
Here is another clue, the one example they give of nutritional differences cites soy milk's low protein while failing to mention that goat's milk has more protein than cow's milk.
Didn't read the original research but either the research is bad and possibly biased or this is very misleading reporting.
[edit] removed mention of breast milk since article didn't say that
Perplexing.
[edit: link to HN discussion on the lactose tolerant mutation] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4710596
>IGF-1 promotes undesirable growth too—like cancer growth and accelerated aging. IGF-1 is one of the most powerful promoters of cancer growth ever discovered for cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, and colon.6 Overstimulation of growth by IGF-1 leads to premature aging too—and reducing IGF-1 levels is “anti-aging.”7
Wait for the meta-study, especially if the result is at all topical or exciting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40158358
Who knows what kind of hormones the Diary Industry puts on the Cow-Milk you are drinking.
Cow=> Not your mother, not your Milk!