For decades, consumers have been told to drink milk. Marketed as both nutritionally beneficial and even ‘cool,’ the “white stuff” has been touted as an essential dietary requirement for children, a bone-building boost for women and a good, all round healthy option for the fridge. So is there any truth in Peta’s recent insistence that milk can do more harm than good to health? Clare Harman investigates.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Chubby Charlie looks distinctly uncomfortable slumped in his armchair. Relieved of the burden of his enormous midriff, his limbs look stiff and awkward. What’s worse is that milk is spurting from his ears and his rotund belly button.
The future doesn’t look too bright for Phlegmy Phil either, as he struggles to hold his head aloft from the proliferation of mucus cascading from his open mouth and spreading across his fingertips.
These hideous images are just two of the 5,500 “Milk Suckers” trading cards currently circulating among the UK’s primary schools, where kids revel in their grossness just as they might fawn over Pokémon’s latest exploits. The battle for influence over the babes has intensified; the anti-dairy corner, championed by US group the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), is pulling out all the stops in a bid to convince youngsters (7-14 year olds) that milk is not the drink of choice for health and well-being. As well as contradicting years of official nutritional advice, Peta also buffets more recent dairy advertising campaigns, by suggesting that drinking milk is not even ‘cool’ (a cursory glimpse at Windy Wendy or Spotty Sue is enough to convince anyone that milk consumption can cause acute social embarrassment).
Focusing on the negative health effects of milk, the internally funded Peta campaign is raising some novel questions about the commodity and quite a few eyebrows amongst nutritionists and the dairy industry. The National Dairy Council has vehemently attacked the campaign as “totally irresponsible,” and denies that there is any link between milk and obesity, mucus or acne. The UK government’s Food Standards Agency similarly branded the campaign misleading.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalData |
Chubby Charlie |
For the time being however, Peta remaines undeterred, and anti-dairy activists are parading the images at school gates around the country, targeting youngsters in the hope that dietary habits can be changed before they become entrenched. “We want to show that dairy products aren’t the be-all and end-all that they are promoted to be when children are growing up,” Toni Vernelli, Peta’s European campaign coordinator, told the Wall Street Journal.
And the timing couldn’t be better. In Britain, PETA hopes to capitalise on health issues raised by the recent foot-and-mouth disease and BSE scares. “This is a perfect time to bring up an issue like this because there are already questions about the health risks involved with certain farming procedures,” said Vernelli: “The public is really sceptical about food safety.”
Its message is indeed catching on among those celebrities and film stars who arguably have the most influence over children’s tastes. While the country’s top models were paid by NDC to sport a milk moustache in a bid to lend the drink chic, Peta’s magazine Animal Times (Winter 2000) quotes Arnold Schwarzenegger as proclaiming, “Milk is for babies!” Meanwhile, Madonna explains that her favourite ice cream is dairy free and actor Michael Caine applauds the creamy virtues of soymilk.
Milk sucks!
 |
Phlegmy Phil |
Peta is known for its longstanding adherence to animal rights and the promotion of vegetarianism, and has long attacked the intensive dairy industry for what it argues are abusive and torturous practices. While the majority of its campaigns focus on the suffering of animals at the carnivorous hand of man, “milk sucks” stands out in its wholehearted concentration on what the milk does for the drinker, rather than the cow herself. MilkSucks.com provides the less palatable information on intensive farming abuses for those that want it, but the trading cards and much of the associated literature focus squarely on human health. The unsightly conditions depicted on the cards are certainly four the school age child can live without, but is milk really bad for us?
According to Peta and a growing body of scientists, indeed it is. Another campaign site, Notmilk.com alleges that milk is linked to rheumatoid arthritis, tuberculosis, sudden infant death syndrome, uterine cancer, ear infections, juvenile diabetes and heart disease. The site of the Canadian Health Care Advocates meanwhile claims that milk is the predominant means of transmitting the bacteria that causes Crohn’s disease: “Millions in milk-consuming countries have the intractable, debilitating, torturous Crohn’s disease. It’s a mushrooming epidemic,” the site claims.
In the US, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine agrees**. In posing the question “Shouldn’t I drink milk?” the PCRM answers a resounding no: “There is no nutritional requirement for dairy products, and there are serious problems that can result from the proteins, sugar, fat, and contaminants in milk products.” Its reasoning echoes Peta’s argument that, “many people, particularly those of Asian and African ancestry, are unable to digest the milk sugar, lactose. The result is diarrhoea and gas,” the article reads. Meanwhile, “dairy products […] contain significant amounts of saturated fat, as well as cholesterol, contributing to cardiovascular diseases and certain forms of cancer […] While children do need a certain amount of fat in their diets, there is no nutritional requirement for cow’s milk fat.”
 |
Spotty Sue |
Most worryingly perhaps, the committee is anxious to dispel what it considers to be a myth that milk is good for the bones. “Dairy products offer a false sense of security to those concerned about osteoporosis,” insists the site. “In countries where dairy products are not generally consumed, there is actually less osteoporosis than in the US.” Indeed, the PCRM argues that foods such as kale or broccoli contain calcium that is more readily absorbed by the body.
In the US, where cows are routinely given growth hormones to boost milk production, hormone residues are often cited as the cause of early puberty in school children. Across the US, Peta has handed out some 10,000 cards and the “Dump Dairy” campaign has been running for the past two months. In adults meanwhile, the Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) is also cited as a cause of cancer, as it boosts the natural production of another hormone called insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and the rapid reproduction of cells. ***
Peta: “Totally irresponsible”
Peta’s campaign efforts in the UK have come at an inopportune moment for the National Dairy Council, which has recently launched its own series of pro-milk adverts across the UK. Designed by the BMP DDB agency in London, the campaign features cartoons of heroes with milk; like soccer star George Best, comedian Frank Carson or boxer Prince Naseem Hamed. The consumption of milk is declining, but with the tagline “The White Stuff … Are You Made of It?” the adverts have already boosted milk sales by an estimated 33m litres.
 |
Windy Wendy |
Consumers in the UK guzzle about 10bn pints of milk every year, but researchers are worried that if the category continues to lose popularity among the nation’s children, health problems will increase. Milk is losing a battle against the sweet, carbonated beverages that feature in every cafeteria and are vended through a huge number of schools in the US and the UK.
Michele Stephens, Communications manager at NDC, explained to just-food.com that the body has written to the Advertising Standards Authority to voice complaints about the campaign: “We described the campaign as irresponsible and misleading because the information on the cards that they are distributing is not based on much science.”
“When we make claims we argue on the back of science, we have a department which looks at the available research. And we’re not aware of the research that support’s Peta’s claims.” Furthermore, Stephens pointed out that the PCRM “perpetuate the same myths” about the ill effects of milk “and when you ask them ‘where is the evidence that shows this?’ they can’t back it up.”
“Everyone has a right to make their own decisions (about consuming dairy),” says Stephens, “but those decisions should be based on fact. We will obviously dispute Peta’s facts, but Peta should understand that it’s not just us doing that. There are many doctors out there that are saying ‘hold on a moment!'”
“The only person who should tell you to eliminate items from your diet is your GP, or a state-registered dietician. We’d never say it, and Peta shouldn’t be doing it either.”
The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) of England and Wales, which has also voiced concerns to the ASA, is equally adamant that Peta is missing the point. “It is a well-known fact that milk is essential for the healthy development of bones, teeth and skin and is an important source of calcium. Peta demonstrates through this campaign that they have no knowledge of the benefits of milk,” said NFU deputy president Tim Bennett to the Belfast Newsletter.
Highest standards
Furthermore, says Bennett, it is obvious that Peta’s real agenda is not to protect health but to end intensive dairy farming: “The main motive for their campaign is to undermine the British dairy industry. Yet we operate to some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.” Indeed, the UK dairy industry is governed by many rules and regulations, deriving from both the European Community and from industry bodies. The European Council Directive, (implemented in August 2000) forms the law for dairy practice, but like any good industry it also has its own set of standards to ensure good husbandry.
In any case, “we respect that people may be emotionally opposed to farming, but there’s no justification for making inaccurate and unscientific claims about the health implications of consuming dairy products,” says Stephens.
In the main, the response to Peta’s campaign among the UK’s consumers has been muted. Perhaps this has something to do with the stealth tactics many perceive to be at play. Speaking on Radio 4, a spokesman from the National Union of Head Teachers commented recently that teachers should ask Peta to leave the school gates, and mothers around the country have expressed their disapproval. Issues surrounding responsible farming and good husbandry need a forum in any society, and Peta may be congratulated for keeping a debate on animal protection alive. The fact that UK consumers are reluctant to take on board news that contradicts years of dietary advice and habits is good news however for the dairy industry across Europe, because Peta is planning to pay a visit to Scandinavian primary schools next.
* The battle cry of Peta’s milk campaign site, milksucks.com
** http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/milk.html
*** http://www.vegsource.com/articles/breast_cancer.htm
