"White Poison": The Political Ecology of Cow's Milk

"White Poison": The Political Ecology of Cow's Milk By Mengzhu Fu The production and consumption of food is an important anthropological issue to examine in relation to human health and illness. Food has a biological and physiological effect on our bodies, but these effects are variable among different groups of people in particular times and places. Food also has many social meanings beyond the individual and biological effects or choices. Food is an integral part of society and vital for human existence, survival and health. "Next to breathing, eating is perhaps the most essential of all human activities, and one with which much of social life is entwined"(Mintz and Du Bois 2002: 102). Situated in particular social, economic, political and cultural contexts, the production and consumption of food carries various meanings and involves a set of interactions inside a web of power that shapes the way it is produced, marketed, distributed and consumed. Therefore, 'food' itself is a constructed category that does not have universal contents. What may be considered "food" for some may be considered "not food" for others. Furthermore, what constitutes 'good food' is a social not biological matter (Mintz 1985:8). I will examine the political ecology of cow's milk production and consumption in relation to human health and illness. The Evolutionary and Historical Background of Milk Firstly, to situate the consumption of milk in evolutionary context, cow's milk is a relatively recent addition to the human diet. For most of human history, humans have not consumed milk from another species nor have we consumed milk during adulthood. The phenomenon of milk consumption emerged with the advent of agriculture, domestication of animals and a more settled existence - approximately six to ten thousand years ago (Kretchmer 2000: 186, Ulijaszek and Strickland 1993). Before the Neolithic Revolution, there were no dairy products in hunter-gatherer diets. In comparison to other mammalian species, human beings who consume milk as adults, particular milk from another species is an extremely rare phenomenon (Kretchmer 2000:186). Mother's milk has been a primary food source for baby mammals, it is crucial for the development and growth of the infant (Kretchmer 2000:186). After weaning, most mammals decrease lactase production[1] . The modern history of milk in the US has been well documented by Dupuis (2002). Milk production has been in existence in the US since the beginning of colonisation, with family farms and the pastoral lifestyles of settlers. These European settlers farming cows with limited milk producing capacity turned cow's milk into cheese and butter, rather than drinking it fresh (Dupuis 2002:5). According to Dupuis (2002:5), drinking fresh milk fresh cow's milk began in the US in the mid 19th century as a substitute for breast milk for urban working class mothers with infants and children. At this time, with little sanitation, no refrigeration or pasteurisation, milk was a dangerous and deadly substance. One historian called it the 'white poison'. Despite this, milk consumption rose and it became more than just a drink, it became "an embodiment of the politics of the American identity over the last 150 years" along with the rise of industrial food and modern eating (Dupuis 2002:8). It was associated with perfection, "nature's perfect food", and American ideals defined by those with power and privilege (Dupuis 2002:11). Dairy production, biotechnology and illness Since the modern era, dairy production has increased in scale and the industry has undergone monopolisation by a few multinational corporations, which have been taking over small-scale farms, degrading the environment and industrialising farming practices which creates a dependency on biotechnology for continued or increased rates of production . These corporations include Nestle, Unilever and Kraft (Wiley 2007:667). A pressing ethical issue in dairy production Ehrenfeld (2002) raises is the use of the genetically engineered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone to increase milk production in the US. This is a growth hormone made by taking the growth hormone gene from cattle, modifying it slightly and inserting it into bacteria using genetic engineering (Ehrenfeld 2002:559). rBGH is marketed by Monsanto as Posilac. When Posilac is injected into lactating cows, a 10-15% increase in milk production is often observed. The milk produced with the injection of rBGH is both different and the same as other milk, it contains higher levels of Insulin- like Growth Factor-1 , which is suspected of causing breast cancer and gastrointestinal cancers (Ehrenheld 2002:559). However, no conclusive evidence on the health effects of rBGH milk has been made due to contradictory results in peer reviewed journals, conducted by independent and company-sponsored scientists (Ehrenheld 2002:560). The treatment of the dairy cows has echoed effects on human health when dairy is consumed. As discussed by Ehrenfeld (2002), for cows, it causes an increased feed intake over several weeks, which means they need more calories and protein. The cheapest source of this is from dead animal carcasses, including sheep, horse and cows. Consequently, this causes the herbivorous cows to become carnivores and cannibals. It is exactly this practice that has led to the emergence of spongiform encephalopathy "Mad Cow Disease" and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. Increases in both clinical and subclinical mastitis are common with rBGH in dairy cows. Mastitis is normally treated with antibiotics. Antibiotics can get into the milk and in a few possible routes, makes its way onto the supermarket shelves undetected (Ehrenfeld 2002:560). For humans, this can lead to antibiotic resistance when they drink milk contaminated by antibiotics, which means when people get sick, antibiotics may not work. Aside from the health impacts on humans, Ehrenfeld poses the question: do we have the right to treat cows as milk-producing machines, with all the suffering and exploitation this involves? (2002:561). I would certainly argue no, I do not believe it is acceptable to treat animals as commodities or machines for human use and abuse for reasons similar to Torres [2]. The relationship between Monsanto and the US government can account for why genetically engineered products such as Posilac are on the market, despite their controversial health effects on animals and humans. Monsanto is a major political contributor to both political parties in the US (Ehrenfeld 2002:561). Therefore, it is necessary to look at the whole picture and the context surrounding rBGH, "not only IFG1 in the milk and animal health but antibiotic resistance, spongiform encephalopathy, animal rights, the welfare of farmers and the farm communities, the well-being of agriculture and the maintenance of whole ecosystems" (Ehrenfeld 2002:562). The emphasis on maintaining ecological balance is important. Dairy farming all over the world has dire environmental consequences including deforestation, methane emissions contributing to climate change, effluent polluting waterways and soil degradation[3]. Milk Consumption, Whiteness and Hegemony In the US and for most of the western world, milk is considered a vital aspect of a healthy diet. Its importance to western culture can be seen in standard food pyramids recommending the proportional dietary intakes. Milk drinking is thus constructed as a normal and normative practice and it also implies superiority in health (Wiley 2004:514). The self-professed superiority of European culture and the European biology is often attributed to milk consumption. This assumption with its colonial and racist connotations has implicitly extended to the current discourses and scientific knowledge around milk, lactose-intolerance and nutrition[4]. Dupuis (2002:14) states, "The establishment of white racial hegemony and the celebration and the purification of a white substance digested predominantly by this group [is] more than accidental." Nonwestern biologies are often medicalised as deviant or less fit, hence the "Drink Milk for Fitness" slogan used in milk promotion as a pun referring to Darwinian notions of evolution (Wiley 2004: 514). In dairy-consuming cultures, the recommendation of dairy as a dietary requirement is both ethnocentric and biocentric (Wiley 2004:506). It ignores other biologies and lacks appreciation for human variation. Although the inability to digest milk and the impersistence of lactase is 'normal' for the species, across time and space, it is this condition that is medicalised as an illness. Terminology used to describe what is actually normal in mammal populations often carries connotations of pathology: 'lactose intolerance', 'lactose malabsorption', 'lactose maldigestion' or 'lactase deficiency'. This terminology normalises the consumption of milk or lactose and sees the negative effects of milk as problems of the body rather than the problem being the consumption of milk in the first place. While bodies that are biologically prone to milk consumption are celebrated, 'other digestive physiologies are seen as abnormal or deficient in some way and need to be "overcome"' (Wiley 2004:515). Wiley uses lactase persistence/impersistence[5] to distinguish the two physiological conditions in an attempt to avoid medicalising either condition as pathological . Women who participated in Kingfisher and Millard's (1998) study of lactose intolerance experienced similar biocentric notions and their bodily experience often conflicted with authoritative knowledge. Biocentrism and ethnocentrism are similar biases that assume a level of superiority and universalism of the dominant culture's ideas and biology. Biocentrism is "an assumption that people generally are biologically the same as oneself" (Kingfisher and Millard 1998:463), and the 'normal' biology in the US is one of northern European descent in discourses around lactose intolerance. These ideas manifested in the medical setting can be illustrated with the nutritional and dietary recommendations by Euroamerican health professionals of daily dairy consumption to ethnic minorities, whose biologies are not suitable for lactose digestion. In these circumstances, women with an aversion to milk are given contradictory knowledge, their bodily knowledge indicates that milk makes them sick, while authoritative 'expert' knowledge of nutritionists and health professionals claim that milk is good for them. This is reflected in the title of Kingfisher and Millard's (1998) paper, "Milk Makes Me Sick but My Body Needs It". Kingfisher and Millard (1998:451) also note, "National and international nutrition advice and programs often assume that all people are lactose tolerant, and lactose intolerance is often considered an aberration or disease rather than part of a normal range of human variation". The construction of lactose intolerance or lactase impersistence as 'deviant' and pathological reflects the institutionalised racism within American society. Therefore, lactose-intolerance with all its associated adverse bodily effects only exists within a context where milk consumption is considered normative and normal (Wiley 2004:514). Larger politico-economic processes are at work in the promotion of milk, which interacts with the construction of authoritative knowledge that benefits the milk industry. In the US, the USDA and National Dairy Council are both involved in the promotion of dairy products. Regardless of the prevalence of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities in the US, milk is still a recommended dietary requirement. For people with lactase impersistence, many US institutions related to diet and nutrition promote other dairy products with less lactose, such as cheese and yogurt as "solutions" or "substitutes"[6] (Wiley 2004:511). Other sources of calcium are subordinated. This indicates that the 'expert' knowledge is built on ideas about milk as a dietary necessity for adult nutrition, which is a western biocentric idea that ignores the physiological variation and the range of nutritional needs of people. This demonstrates how the wider political and economic context interacts with biology and culture. The underlying desire of industries in a capitalist system is the maximisation of profit, and in the political arena, the state seeks a maximisation of power. These two motivations is a recipe for corruption. But in order to gain profit and power, the use of authoritative and medical knowledge is a means of social control and acquiescence of the established order in the modern world. Foucault's (1973) notion of the medical gaze and the relationship between political ideology and medical technology is important to consider in the political ecology of milk. For the state, the dairy industry and the medical institutions, controlling people's diet is one way of controlling people's consumption, health and participation in the economy, it is thus a form of biopower. Globalisation of Dairy: the Case of China In the epoch of globalisation, milk has undergone transformations both literally and symbolically in western and non-western countries (Wiley 2007:666). While milk consumption is declining in traditionally dairy- consuming countries like the US, milk consumption is rising quite rapidly in countries with previous aversions to milk like China. China is targeted by the global industry as a prime market for their products (Wiley 2007:666) and the consumption rates of dairy has increased 15-fold per capita, the highest increase out of the Asian countries (Wiley 2007: 668). However, China historically had very limited milk consumption (Wiley 2007:670). Milk products were only produced by nomadic peoples of the north and west, and it was consumed by Chinese upper classes. But during the Ming Dynasty, it then became associated with Mongols who were considered foreign 'barbarians'. Chinese people had an aversion to milk. But now this has all changed with the increasing consumption of fluid milk and dairy products. This then begs the question, how and why has this change in milk consumption and attitudes towards milk come about? Firstly, it is important to note that the rise in milk consumption is observed highest in the urban areas (Wiley 2007:670). This pattern could be due to a number of reasons: accessibility, effect of mass advertising in cities, school programs and the fact that cities are at the forefront of modernisation, development and 'progress', which is often modeled on western lifestyles. The marketing and promotional strategies of joint government and corporate ventures needs be examined. Promotional marketing of milk include giving away free dairy products in supermarkets, advice from health professionals, advertisements on television (Wiley 2007:670). Like the in US, the government of China and the dairy industry have been working together to push milk consumption. Their strategies are age-specific. For children, the Ministry of Agriculture initiated a subsidised milk program for schools in 1999 because of the need to "develop scientific eating habits from a young age"[7]. The establishment of a joint government and business-sponsored school milk program is a key part to the government's strategy to increase milk consumption, insure the health of the nation, and provide an economic stimulus to China's burgeoning dairy industry. (Wiley 2007:671). The dairy industries target children through advertising with popular and successful athletes and celebrities, associating dairy consumption with growth and health. Changing the taste of milk by flavouring it with fruit flavours and sweetness is another way the dairy industry markets to children in China (Wiley 2007:672). For adults, milk is marketed as an alternative to alcoholic drinks at special events or gatherings. "Milk is considered healthier than alcohol-and particularly it has its own special positive health effects ranging from fighting germs, improving the skin, keeping teeth healthy, and preventing aging"(Wiley 2007: 672) . The relationship between milk and growth is especially highlighted in the promotion of milk. Efforts by China's Ministry of Agriculture and the dairy industry to promote milk have been proven successful as seen in the rising pattern of milk consumption in China. Milk is promoted and advertised with images of modernity, wealth, progress as well as health, growth, strong bones and whiteness. One of the biggest dairy companies in China is Mengniu Dairy, which has recently received media attention for effectively putting poison in infant milk formulas, a similar fiasco to Nestle's promotion of cow milk based infant formulas in Third World countries. This company was founded in1999 and it is based in Inner Mongolia (Wiley 2007:670). As reported in the news, New Zealand's dairy corporation, Fonterra, owns about half of Mengniu, they has also come under criticism for their involvement in the scandal. Health implications of infant formulas The prevalence of infant formulas based on cow's milk has many health implications for mothers and infants. The authoritative knowledge of 'experts' and nutritionists which promote formula milk has created an alternative to breastfeeding infants which has had a maladaptive effect on the human population, particularly mothers. This trend in western society began with the Industrial Revolution, which was also when cow's milk was introduced as a drink to replace women's break milk for infants and children (Dupuis 2002). This abandonment of breastfeeding has led to health risks for both mother and infant, and changes in relationships between mother and child, from interdependence to independence (Whitaker 1999). Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, higher risks of allergies, higher susceptibility to infectious diseases for the infant as a result. For the mother, there are higher risks of breast cancer. For most of our evolutionary history, mothers have breastfed infants for between 15-18 months as a primary source of nutrition, breastfeeding continues after that but other foods are also introduced (Whitaker 1999:489). "Unfortunately, the health benefits of breastfeeding, especially for mothers, are generally overshadowed by assertions regarding the supposed convenience of bottle feeding and the nutritional adequacy of artificial milk" (Whitaker 1999:494). Conclusion In the contemporary globalised and urbanised world, milk is commodified substance surrounded by a web of processes and interactions that have constructed it as a 'good food', an edible/drinkable source of nutrition for the majority of the world, who are in fact lactose-intolerant. The dairy industry and the trend in fresh milk consumption emerged during the establishment of industrial capitalism. It is now is embedded in the western hegemonic neoliberal system promoting capitalist expansion, which in many ways is a perpetuation of colonial legacies of the past 500 years. From production to consumption, the dairy industry and the mutually benefiting political and economic systems causes adverse effects on human health, ecology and animals. In this essay, I have explained the relationships between political economy and the use of biotechnology to increase dairy yields, the relationship between western cultural imperialism and the globalisation of milk in China, the medicalisation and construction of lactose-intolerant biologies as 'deviant' and the racism inherent in American society and the impact of infant formulas on the health of mothers and infants. This political ecology of cow's milk illustrates how milk consumption is so taken for granted in western culture and exposes the underlying biocentrism and ethnocentrism in the medical professions specializing in diet and nutrition. Production, promotion and consumption of milk along with the associated social meanings demonstrate how health, power/knowledge, politics, culture, economics and biology interact in today's globalised world. Bibliography DuPuis, Erna M. 2002. Nature's Perfect Food: How Milk Became America's Drink. New York: New York University Press. Ehrenfeld, David. 2002. The Cow Tipping Point. In Whitaker, Elizabeth 2006 Health and Healing in Comparative Perspective, 558-562. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Kingfisher, Catherine and Ann Millard. 1998. "Milk Makes Me Sick but My Body Needs It": Conflict and Contradiction in the Establishment of Authoritative Knowledge. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 12:447-466. Ferzacca, Steve. 2004. Lived Food and Judgments of Taste at A Time of Disease. Medical Anthropology: Cross Cultural Studies in Health and Illness 23:41-67 Foucault, Michel. 1973. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. Trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith. London: Tavistock Publications Limited. Kretchmer, Norman. 2000. Genetic Variability and Lactose Tolerance. In Goodman, Alan, Darna Dufour and Gretel Pelto Nutritional Anthropology: Biocultural Perspectives on Food and Nutrition, 186-191. California: Mayfield Publishing Company. Mintz, Sydney, and Christine Du Bois. 2002. The Anthropology of Food and Eating. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:99-119 Mintz, Sydney. 1985. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Vermont: The Book Press. Torres, Bob. 2007. Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. Oakland, Edinburgh: AK Press. Whitaker, Elizabeth. 1999. Breastfeeding, Breast Cancer and the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in Anthropological Perspective. In Whitaker, Elizabeth, Health and Healing in Comparative Perspective, 486-496. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Wiley, Andrea S. 2004. "Drink Milk For Fitness": The Cultural Politics of Human Biological Variation and Milk Consumption in the United States. American Anthropologist 106 :506-517 Wiley, Andrea S. 2007. Transforming Milk in a Global Economy. American Anthropologist 109:666-677 Ulijaszek, S. And S. Strickland. 1993. Nutritional Anthropology: Prospects and Perspectives. London: Smith-Gordon and Company Ltd. ----------------------- [1] Lactase is necessary for the digestion of lactose, the sugar in milk. [2] For more an in depth analysis of the exploitation of animals in relation to the political economy and arguments for animal liberation, see Torres . His book discusses the commodification of animals and uses radical sociological analyses to link all forms of oppression to that of animals. [3] Environmental degradation and contribution to climate change will have health consequences for humans and animals, including displacement through extreme weather, water-borne diseases from run-off in waterways, low soil quality means food production is likely to decline. [4] However, these ideas are being challenged by anti-milk groups including vegan animal rights and health groups . [5] However, it is important to recognise that lactose intolerance is not the same as lactase impersistence. Lactose intolerance refers to a set of physiological reactions when milk is consumed such as diarrhea, bloating, nausea, stomach pains etc. While this is related to the lactase impersistence, lactase impersistent people do not necessarily or always react in this way to milk. [6] These being offered as "solutions" and "substitutes" thereby implies that lactase impersistence is socially constructed as a "problem" and that milk is a necessity. [7] A quote from a vice director of China's Ministry of Agriculture .