Yes, it does do a body good. Cow's milk saved children in the United States from rickets, and developed nations from the malnutrition that plagues undeveloped countries-even countries that breast feed for extended periods of time.
Rickets is a serious disease caused by a nutritional deficiency. Children have to have sufficient amounts of calcium, phosphorus and vitamin D to form strong, healthy straight bones. Rickets during childhood causes permanent impairment, even after treatment. It was endemic for centuries in the northern countries, where sunlight is scarce in the winter, until the efficacious effects of cod liver oil were discovered in the 1920's. Vitamin D is formed in the body from exposure to sunlight. It regulates calcium and phosphorus, which are also necessary to prevent rickets.
n the 1960's, the United States started fortifying milk with vitamin D, which virtually eliminated rickets and vitamin D deficiencies.
Until recently. Adults and children are being found to have vitamin D deficiencies again, and children are getting rickets. This is because of our indoor lifestyles, our sunscreen and worry about skin cancer, and because we have vilified milk.
Vitamin D is not found in breast milk. This is not an evolutionary mistake, but is because we originated from an area in the world with sufficient sunlight to not need it. Now that we have spread all over the globe, and live lifestyles out of the sun, it's imperative that we get enough vitamin D.
Pregnant women need vitamin D so that their newborns are not born with malformed bones. Nursing women need vitamin D to pass it on to the babies. Babies need vitamin D supplements and exposure to sunlight when they are still breastfeeding. Children, when they are toddlers, can have their calcium, phosphorus and vitamin D needs met with two glasses of milk a day.
Raw milk is not fortified with vitamin D. The risk of disease should be low from raw milk if it's known that the cows, or goats, are healthy. It should be recognized, however, that when using raw or organic milk a vitamin D supplement, or a natural source such as cod liver oil, need to be taken.
Most kids, even those who are of the genetic background to become lactose intolerant, are tolerant of lactose until four or five years of age. For those who are lactose intolerant, they can try lactaid, or a milk substitute, such as a pediatric formula for older children. Soymilk is not a milk substitute. If soymilk is used, it should be whole, and fortified with calcium and vitamin D. Rice milk and almond milk are worse, because not only do they not contain calcium, phosphorus, or vitamin D, they are very low in protein. One wonders why they are even named 'milk'.
There have been cases of children who have become malnourished by being fed rice milk or almond milk. In the link below, there is a case of a child who was diagnosed with severe kwashiorker at 22 months from being given rice milk by his well meaning parents after weaning from the breast at 13 months. His intake of solid food was poor.
Kwashiorkor is a severe nutritional deficiency usually seem in children in famine stricken countries whose ratio of dietary protein to energy ratio in their foods is low.
The link also describes a case in which a child was diagnosed with rickets at 17 months of age after being weaned at 10 months of age to a soy health food beverage, and eating no animal products. His growth and development was completely arrested until he was treated.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/co ntent/abstract/107/4/e46
Both of these parents breast fed past the normal time for most mothers in the United States. It's a shaky argument to compare cow's milk to mother's milk. Breast milk is the best, and should never be replaced with straight cow's milk at under a year of age. However, most children are weaned at an age when a cheap, easily available form of protein can make a difference between thriving and failing. it obviously has made that difference in the past. The reason that 90 percent of caucasians are tolerant of milk could only be because in the thousands of years since we started farming, cow's milk was an evolutionary advantage for those who lived in northern climates. It probably provided food during the winter.
Cow's milk is high in fat and cholesterol. So is human milk. Cholesterol is an absolutely necessary building block for the human brain. Babies' brains are not fully developed at birth. Cholesterol is needed for growing nerve tissue and the myelin sheaths that surround nerves. Myelin growth takes place into the second decade of life. Adequate myelin is necessary for speeding up the electrical impulses in the brain, and is protective against diseases that attack myelin, such as multiple sclerosis. Formulas currently contain no cholesterol. Neither does soy milk.
The fat content, besides providing needed calories, is necessary for optimum use of the protein content. If there isn't enough fat in the diet, the protein is wasted. This is not usually a problem in adult diets, but can be in a purely or mostly milk fed child, if the fat content is not adequate.
Lactose is the main sugar in milk. It breaks down into galactose and glucose. Galactose is helpful for brain development. Breast milk is higher in lactose than cow's milk. Soy milk, of course, contains none. It is healthier to have lactose in the diet unless you are unable to digest it.
As adults (meaning when full growth is obtained), it's safe to have a carefully supplemented dairy free or meat free diet. We have that ability because we live in a technologically advanced society. It can, however, be an expensive option.
But why has milk, the only food that was made to be food, that is the symbol for plenty (the land of milk and honey), and that has been served by moms with cookies for years, suddenly been turned into the epitome of evil? I know of one reason.
My daughter once came home from health class-a required class-went to the fridge, poured a big glass of milk and downed it, then turned to me and said, "My teacher said we shouldn't drink milk." Stunned, I looked over her text book and it said nothing against milk, citing the usual food pyramid. I started asking people-since when did milk became bad? Someone directed me to an anti-milk website. I started researching, and I noticed that all the articles were the same, or used the same phrases. Finally one linked back to the source, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
It didn't take much research to find out there were no physicians (the president, Neal Barnard, is a psychiatrist, not a nutritionist), they aren't responsible, and they aren't about medicine. The PCRM is a radical animal rights group that spreads health disinformation to scare people away from using animals for food, for milk, or for medical experiments. They don't care about the veracity of their statements nor do they have a peer review to keep their 'research' honest.
A 1992 AMA press release blasting PCRM for starting a "milk panic":
The American Medical Association is alarmed by today's allegation that milk is dangerous and should not be required or recommended in government guidelines. There is absolutely no scientific proof to support such a claim ... The AMA continues to marvel at how effectively a fringe organization of questionable repute continues to hoodwink the media with a series of questionable research that fails to enhance public health. Instead, it serves only to advance the agenda of activist groups interested in perverting medical science. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is an animal "rights" organization, and, despite its title, represents less than 0.5 percent of the total U.S. physician population. Its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is also the scientific advisor to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an organization that supports and speaks for the terrorist organization known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
Source:
http://www.activistcash.com/organizatio n_overview.cfm/oid/23
Milk has been the victim of a slander campaign.
Prejudice against milk has also arisen because of the misunderstanding that certain necessary nutrients, such as fat, cholesterol and lactose, are bad for all people in all circumstances. It might be good for adults to pursue a low fat diet, even though there's evidence that that causes a rise in calorie consumption in the form of carbohydrates. It may be good to reduce cholesterol, even though the connection between blood cholesterol and dietary cholesterol has not been established. But it doesn't change the fact that milk is a great source of food-calories, protein, cholesterol, lactose, calcium, phosphorus, supplemented vitamin D, and other vitamins. It is a good source of B12, which prevents anemia and is only found in animal products.
Tell me that you don't believe in using cows for milk. Tell me that you'd rather that pasture (which is often not good farm land) be turned over for the more inefficient use of growing grain plants rather than letting cows turn grass (which we can not eat) into delicious milk. Tell me that you're lactose intolerant. But don't try to tell me that it's because milk is not good for you.