By Syd Baumel APPENDIX | back to main story
Reply from Amy Lanou, PCRM, April 15, 2002
Dear Mr. Baumel,
Thank you for your correspondence. I apologize for my delay in responding to your most recent questions.
With our education efforts at Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, we intend to offer interested members of the public access to health information which for various reasons my not have been previously brought to their attention. In the case of milk, the vast majority of individuals I talk or correspond with have not heard anyone question the health value of milk, nor are they aware that any research studies exist suggesting that consumption at the levels currently recommended by the USDA (or for many, any consumption of dairy products) may actually do more harm than good. I feel strongly about offering this information to interested individuals so that they can make an informed decision about how to eat and what food to offer to their children.
At the same time, I do not feel compelled to offer a complete review of the literature each time I write, speak, or otherwise educate on this topic because information concerning the health value of milk is already widely available and effectively disseminated.
With respect to your question about the omission of studies on the relationship of colon cancer and dairy and/or calcium consumption, we are actually looking at that question now. If indeed calcium rich foods do reduce risk, we are faced with the situation that colon cancer is much less common than prostate cancer, for which calcium and dairy seem to have the opposite effect. Oddly enough, one might be in the same position as the researchers who find that smoking helps Parkinson's disease. It is not entirely clear what the role of a responsible advocacy group would be in such a circumstance.
I hope this note finds you well.
Best regards, Amy
Amy Joy Lanou, Ph.D.
Nutrition Director
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
(202)686-2210 ext. 354Reply to Amy Lanou, April 16, 2002
Dear Amy,
Thanks for your reply. I accept it as a policy statement that PCRM has no intention of educating the public in an impartial, evenhanded way, but sees its role as arguing strictly for one side in the public debate on the healthfulness or hazardousness of milk and dairy. Although I strongly believe this is a regressive and essentially antisocial policy, I do accept that it can be a tolerable one, but only if PCRM is up-front with the public and its members and supporters that this is indeed its purpose and strategy. If there is any admission of that in your literature, which I have read for years as a supporter and donor myself, I have failed to see it.
To the contrary, I had been under the impression that an organization that calls itself "The Physicians Committe for Responsible Medicine" and that is motivated by the compassionate ideals of veganism and animal rights would have both the intellectual capacity and the ethical intent to be an independent, transparent, and honest broker on health matters for the public. I agree that while most people have been inculcated with the message that "milk is good for you" and even essential to their health, few have even a minimal grasp of the science surrounding specific milk-related health issues such as heart disease, various cancers, and even osteoporosis. I believe that the average person who reads PCRM's literature in a spirit of trust and good faith (and surely this is your aim) assumes that when PCRM discusses the link between dairy and osteoporosis, for example, it is debunking dairy myths with the honest counsel of responsible, evidence-based physicians who, in this case, maintain that the scientific evidence consists of just a few studies that have consistently failed to support any positive role for dairy products and suggest dairy promotes fractures instead. I trust you know as well as I do that this is not a fair representation of the scientific evidence.
If PCRM chooses to pursue a strategy of providing one-sided information, I believe the responsible thing to do would be to state that clearly, frequently, and unambiguously so people will know that they need to go elsewhere if they want to obtain ALL the factual information they need to make informed health decisions. Ironically, given the biased nature of most consumer information on milk and dairy, that "elsewhere" will more often than not be a source that is no less biased, and so people will remain as confused and cynical as ever. But the increasing numbers who do their homework - a job that grows easier every day, thanks to the Internet - will learn to take everything PCRM says with the same massive grain of salt they reserve for such pseudo-objective organizations on the other side of the divide as the American Council on Science and Health.
An organization like PCRM has a golden opportunity - and (I would say) responsibility - through its high public profile, the generous financial support of people who share its fundamental values (including until recently myself), and the distinguished company it keeps through its advisory board, to distinguish itself as a trustworthy source of objective information on the medical, ethical, and environmental benefits of a plant-based or vegan diet. What a shame if it were to continue instead to compromise its credibility and integrity by resorting to the same grade-school mentality debating tactics and paternalistic disrespect for the intelligence and autonomy of the public as the reactionary forces it repudiates.
I hope you will very seriously rethink your role in the marketplace of vital information and values.
Sincerely,
Syd Baumel
Editor
The Aquarian | Winnipeg Vegetarian | plant-based
www.aquarianonline.com[irrelevant P.S. deleted]
Perhaps not surprisingly I received no reply to this rather stern email. But neither did Dr. Lanou reply to this conciliatiory follow-up on the question she had raised about how to tackle the issue of milk and colon cancer:
Final email to Amy Lanou, June 11, 2002Dear Amy,
I want to apologize if my reply to your email this April was at all
hurtful. I've been bothered ever since for having written in such a
judgemental, perhaps offensive tone. I still disagree deeply with the
approach PCRM takes, but I'd like that to be a friendly disagreement.I'd also like to belatedly respond to one of the points you raised:
| With respect to your question about the omission of studies on the
| relationship of colon cancer and dairy and/or calcium onsumption, we are
| actually looking at that question now. If indeed calcium rich foods do
| reduce risk, we are faced with the situation that colon cancer is much less
| common than prostate cancer, for which calcium and dairy seem to have the
| opposite effect. Oddly enough, one might be in the same position as the
| researchers who find that smoking helps Parkinson's disease. It is not
| entirely clear what the role of a responsible advocacy group would be in
| such a circumstance.Why not simply tell people the facts, and let them decide for
themselves? For example:If you're a man, research strongly suggests that any benefit of milk
against colorectal cancer is outweighed by its threat to your prostate. If you're a woman, there's a much more uncertain danger - based on preliminary evidence that has found little or no support in several subsequent studies - that you may up your risk for ovarian cancer while you're trying to protect your colon. On the other hand, the calcium and vitamin D in milk - which researchers suspect account for its protective effect against colorectal cancer - can be had from other foods that have no blots at all on their record, only plusses, and perhaps a little more sunshine or supplementation.When the overall medical, environmental, and ethical case against dairy is as forceful as it is, why not let people see the case "for" right
alongside it in your own literature? That way, those who would try to make the case that PCRM is an advocacy group with a consistently biased agenda would no longer have a case to make. It would delight me to be able to revise my review of PCRM
(http://www.aquarianonline.com/Wellness/crossfire.html) accordingly.You might also be interested to read my recent letter to VegSource
regarding someone whose hallucinatory bias against dairy must raise even your hackles: http://www.vegsource.com/articles/baumel_cohen1.htmBest,
Syd
All
contents copyright © 2002 The Aquarian.
16
Victoria Row, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R2M 1Y2
ph:
(204) 255-4884 | fax: (204) 255-5057
We
welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions.
www.aquarianonline.com
| info@aquarianonline.com