Brophy 1

Erin Brophy
Dr. Werner
Academic Writing
2 March 2015
Annotated Bibliography
Faghih, S, Abhadi, AR, Hedayati, M, Kimiagar, SM. Comparison of the effects of
cows milk, fortified soy milk, and calcium supplements on weight and fat loss
in premenopausal women. Nutrition Metabolism and Cardiovascular Disease
27.1 (2011): 499-503. Print.
This article was a lab report on a study done by four researchers that studied
the effects of types of milk versus calcium supplements on the human body. The
100 participants of the study ranged from healthy weight to overweight to obese
and were randomly assigned to a diet groups. Each diet group had a different
regimen for consumption and were either told to consume low-fat milk, soy milk
that had been fortified with calcium, or direct sources of calcium through calcium
supplements. After an 8 week period of this eating schedule, the subjects bodies
were measured in three ways: weight, hip circumference, and waste circumference.
After accounting for physical activity and comparing to the baseline measurements
of the participants, it was found that there is a positive correlation between weight
loss and consumption of low fat milk. In other words, low fat milk is the best option
for calcium intake for people who do not want to gain weight. (WC: 160)
I think the public would benefit from learning about this study because it
provides evidence as to why milk does not cause weight gain, like many people

Brophy 3
have come to think due to the United States Department of Agricultures (USDA) low
recommended daily intake of milk, dairy, and other animal products. In the
conclusion of their study, the researches state that increasing low fat milk
consumption significantly reduces the general and central obesity (Faghih et al
501). This statement is supported by the authors findings in that the participants
on the low fat milk diet lost around 5 pounds, whereas the soy milk group and the
group taking calcium supplements lost only 3pounds in a span of 8 weeks, which is
close to what the control group lost (a loss of about 2.8 pounds). While researching
the effects of milk on diet, this is the only study that I have found that juxtaposes
weight and calcium intake due to milk consumption. This study alone shows that
milk consumption (though low fat which is about 3 grams of fat per serving) does
not cause weight gain like many people have come to believe. These people that
stop drinking milk to lose weight often become calcium deficient so they take
calcium supplements to boost their calcium levels. This study provides evidence to
show that calcium supplements are not the best option for people who are also
looking to lose weight. So, people who are trying to lose weight by cutting milk out
of their diet and adding a calcium supplement are actually making it harder for
themselves to lose weight. They should instead switch to low fat milk for their
calcium needs and exercise to lose weight. (WC 285)
Kush, Linda. Death in a Bottle: Tainted Milk Scandal. History Magazine 12.4
(2011): 40-43. Print.
This article by Linda Kush provided a succinct timeline of milk production,
regulation, and consumption over the years (1800s to mid-1900s) and how different
government officials, reformers and philanthropists got involved (or avoided
involvement) in the process. In the mid-1800s, rates of infant death started rising

Brophy 3
greatly leading people to search for an answer. This brought them to the
consumption of cows milk. In those days, it had started to become a fad or a
symbol of wealth and respect to feed your child cows milk in place of breastmilk.
So, the number of bottle-fed babies increased along with the rise in infant mortality.
Around this time was when Louis Pasteur and other scientists were studying germ
theory and bacteria, which led to pasteurization to kill off bacteria culture (many
times cholera and or typhoid bacteria) found in milk due to contamination and
spoiling during transportation. Often times, milk vendors would mix the milk with
flour, borax, and chalk to thicken the milk along with formaldehyde to make it last
longer and dye to bleach it back to a nice white color. Distributors would also add in
water to increase the amount they could sell, but this water was often infested with
cholera and typhoid bacteria. A lot of this contamination could have been avoided,
but regulation and change took a long time because the government wanted to
support the poor farmers that would have to spend a lot of money to buy new
equipment and change their milking processes (Kush 42). (WC 250)
What I think is most interesting and most important to take away from this
article was how long and how difficult the process of making milk healthy was even
though simple solutions had been found. Though simple, these changes were
avoided to satisfy dairy industrys greed. In the 1900s, reformers and
philanthropists argued that milk was the perfect food defiled by evil and
corruption. (Kush 42) There were absolutely no regulations on milk so greedy
distributors created and sold a white liquid consumers believed was milk but in fact
it was a whole lot of chemicals and inedible material mixed up in a deadly
concoction. Yes the milk often went rancid because of the rather long transit time
from the utter of the country cows to the mouths of city babies from New York,

Brophy 2
Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Chicago. However, what was really making people sick
was so much bacteria in the milk from what the vendors were adding, which is not
right. The vendors were killing babies left and right and scientists like Louis Pasteur
and Herbert Conn, who were active in germ theory research, were finding that milk
could be protected through pasteurization and cooling but this process took a little
while so the city officials didnt take immediate action even though it was causing
so much sickness and death. This type of blatant disregard for the well-being of a
population (mostly the poor city population who couldnt afford pasteurized country
milk) is a good example of how greed often trumps the health of a population. I
think this would be great to mention in my paper, because this type of lazy
regulation happens in the modern day world with many different foods, not just milk
and dairy, and obesity is just one of the many health related illnesses associated
with the greedy food industry. (WC: 301)

Levenstein, Harvey. Fear of Food: A History of Why We Worry About What We Eat.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. Print.
Harvey Levenstein is a food historian and in his book, Fear of Food: A History
of Why We Worry About What We Eat, Levenstein follows the history of food and
why nutritionists have advised the avoidance or consumption of certain foods over
time. There is a chapter in his book where Levenstein specifically talks about milk.
In this chapter, Levenstein presents opinions on milk consumption and how theyve
have changed over time in America specifically. In the 1800s, milk was seen as a
dangerous substance because it was went bad easily if it wasnt kept cool, and
many people blamed milk for the high number of infant deaths at this time. One

Brophy 3
doctor in 1889 proposed that these deaths were a result of ingesting millions of
living insects called microorganisms, or bacteria that came from diluting milk with
water that was polluted by drainage from the sick chamber (Levenstein 18).
People were skeptical of milk and when typhoid and tuberculosis became rampant
in the mid 1800s, milk was viewed it as a mysterious white death liquid. Even when
pasteurization was introduced it took about 30 years for milk to earn a good
reputation. In the 1920s, milk was highly advertised as the perfect food by milk
producers to increase the sale and consumption of this beverage (Levenstein 21).
The Dairy Council, the New York State Dairymens League, and the two major milk
producers, Bordens and National Dairy Products, all recommended a dramatic
increase of milk consumption, but the real question is, why? WC: 250
What fascinated me most about the chapter Milk: The Most Valuable and
Dangerous Food was how much of an influence the food industry had on publics
opinion of milk. Levensteins timeline of milk consumption juxtaposed with the
abundance of advertisements for milk shows that publics view of milk is highly
persuaded and regulated by milk producers even when little information backs up
their claims. From 1916 to 1945, just 25 years, the amount of milk consumed by the
American population tripled due to big companies and dairy organizations
promoting the health benefits of milk with the help of nutritionists (Levenstein 22).
One nutritionist, Elmer McCollum, justified the consumption of milk through a
comparison study between Americans and people of Asian descent who he referred
to as Orientals (Levenstein 22). McCollum stated that the milk consuming Western
diet of Americans was more beneficial to ones proper growth and development
because Orientals who stopped drinking milk after weaning were shorter and less
vigorous (Levenstein 22). Just a decade before this, however, consumption of milk

Brophy 2
had been decreasing steadily due to implications that it actually carried loads of
diseases causing bacteria. In addition to this, the chief of the U.S. Bureau of
Chemistry, Harvey W. Wiley, told the public that the pasteurization of milk, which
had started to become commonplace, actually depleted milk of its nutritional
qualities (Levenstein 19). However, just 10 years later, companies can say that
milk allows us to live to an extreme and yet healthy old age (Levenstein 22). How
can public opinion change so quickly with such little evidence? Is that what is
happening presently with milk consumption? WC 265

Teicholz, Nina. The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy
Diet. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. Print.
In this book, Nina Teicholz, provides evidence as to why eating a low fat and
low carb diet really isnt actually as heart healthy as many nutritionists have been
claiming over the years. Teicholz is a journalist that has written for Gourmet
magazine, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. In the Introduction of her
book, Teicholz talks about her personal experience with weight loss and other
factors that have led her to research and write about why saturated fats do not
deserve the negative stigma they carry in modern day America.
Teicholzs recent findings have actually started to suggest that the lack of
saturated fat (present in butter, meat and dairy) is what has been causing problems
and leading to an increase in nutrition-related illnesses such as obesity, heart
disease, and diabetes. Throughout her book, she talks a lot about the importance of
eating a balanced diet that includes animal products containing saturated fat, like

Brophy 3
milk. She references studies and pulls quotes from her individual interviews with
nutritionists, researchers, and dieticians. WC: 151
This book is an incredibly helpful resource that offers helpful diet information,
because it relates both recent and past studies and controversies about the ideal
diet with modern day views on saturated fat in the diet. Teicholz notes that many of
the regulations put forth by government organizations like the USDA are based on
longitudinal case studies that have been monitoring people over their lifetimes. She
states that these studies are weak and impressionistic and I agree (Teicholz 3).
The fact of the matter is that the main goal is to find a diet that reduced heart
disease, obesity, diabetes, and many other diet based health issues so when
something looks like a plausible cause for these illnesses, it is readily denoted as
bad for ones health because these diseases are so serious that any helpful bit of
information is jumped on.
Nina Teicholz discusses a specific milk study run by nutritionist Elmer V.
McCollum that I think is important to the argument that milk is needed to support a
healthy body. McCollum fed one group of rats a diet high in dairy, meat, and milk
products and the other he fed a diet Teicholz called near-vegetarian eating solely
fruits, veggies, and oats (Teicholz 149). In his study, McCollum found that the rats
fed on milk and dairy products (butter), milk and meat, grew to normal adult size
and were able to reproduce and live normally, whereas the vegetarian group grew
weaker and only grew to about 60 percent of normal rat size (Teicholz 149). This is
important to note because it offers a direct correlation between milk consumption
and proper growth and development.

Brophy 2
Nina Teicholzs book not only presents relative studies and specific facts, she
also talks about her own personal experience and relationship with saturated fats.
Teicholz was on a diet that she regulated by the USDAs low recommended daily
allowances for fat intake to lose weight. When Teicholz moved to New York to write a
restaurant review newspaper column, she started to eat cream-laden and heavy
meat meals given to her by the restaurants. To her surprise, Teicholz actually lost 10
pounds nad was told by her doctor that her cholesterol levels were good. Her story
provides a testimonial that could be useful in my paper to convince skeptic readers
that may doubt scientific fact and prefer hearing a real-life story on the success of a
milk diet. WC 398

Weaver, CV. Dairy nutrition beyond infancy. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology
58.2 (2003): 58-60. Print.
This is a peer reviewed journal article of a study published in the Australian
Journal of Dairy Technology. This study measured the mineral bone density of the
bones in hips and spine and found that consumption of milk increased mineral bone
density and not just in the way you would think. Milk is well-known for its calcium
content, but other nutrients present such as riboflavin, vitamin D, phosphorous,
magnesium, and potassium. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets
guidelines for how much of certain nutrients or foods a person should have in one
day. These guidelines are called the Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) and
serve as a tool for the American public to regulate their diet. For example, one liter
of milk meets the RDA 100% for Calcium, 150% for Phosphorous, 68% for Protein,

Brophy 3
44% for Potassium, 37% for Magnesium, 32% Riboflavin and in North America, this
meets 100% of the RDA for Vitamin D (58). This article really stresses the benefit of
consuming dairy products to obtain not just calcium, but a plethora of other
necessary nutrients. WC 178
When considering the health benefits of milk, the common image that comes
to most people is one of bone strength due to calcium intake, which although true,
CM Weaver argues that there is a lot more to milk that just Calcium in her journal
article about the importance of milk consumption after weaning. This idea that milk
offers a plethora of nutrients is the most important from this article. Connie Weaver,
a professor and the department head of the Department of Nutrition Science at
Purdue University, states that most age groups need three to four servings of milk
to meet their calcium requirements (58). Weaver states that supplements do not
provide the same amount of nutrients and the required intake of calcium can only
come from dairy. One reason this is true is because milk is a source of bioavailable
dairy meaning the body can naturally and pretty easily absorb it, as long as the
person is not lactose intolerant (Weaver 58). There are very few studies done on the
specific effect of milk in the body so this is a really helpful article to reference when
making the argument that milk is an important aspect of a healthy diet because of
all of the nutrients it provides. (WC: 207)