“Few benefits and a lot of risks!”

Hervé Berbille, what is your position with regard to milk?

For me, there are no ingredients in milk that you can’t find elsewhere. The big argument in favor of milk is to say that it is essential for bone tissue and its maintenance. However, osteoporosis is not a disease linked to a deficit of calcium intake but to chronic pro-inflammatory phenomena. And milk is precisely a pro-inflammatory product. It is also known that the important nutrients to prevent this disease are magnesium, boron (and more particularly fructoborate) and potassium. All of these nutrients are associated with the plant kingdom.

In your opinion, therefore, calcium is not involved in the phenomenon of osteoporosis?

Calcium is obviously necessary, but it is not the key mineral. Moreover, that contained in milk is not interesting because it also contains phosphoric acid which has an acidifying effect and which causes calcium losses. When the body is acidic, it fights acidity by releasing calcium carbonate that it takes from the tissue, and in doing so, weakens it. On the contrary, potassium will fight this acidification of the body. The calcium in milk is therefore inoperative. I do not dispute that it is very well absorbed by the body but what must be looked at is the balance sheet. It’s like having a bank account and only looking at the contributions. It also looks at the expenses, in this case the calcium leaks!

So in your opinion, the image of milk as the ideal food for bones is wrong?

Absoutely. In fact, I challenge the dairy industry to show us a study that proves that the consumption of dairy products protects against osteoporosis. In the countries where the most dairy products are consumed, that is to say the Scandinavian countries and Australia, the prevalence of osteoporosis is higher. And this is not due to the lack of sun (which allows the synthesis of vitamin D) as claimed by the dairy industry, since Australia is a sunny country. Not only does milk not provide the expected benefits, it also presents health risks …

What are these risks?

In milk, two nutrients are problematic. First, there are the fatty acids tranny. When we talk about fatty acids tranny, people always think of hydrogenated oils, which should obviously be avoided. But dairy products, organic or not, also contain it. The hydrogen found in the stomach of the cow and which comes from rumination, causes a hydrogenation of unsaturated fatty acids which generates fatty acids tranny. The dairy industry funded and published a study that says these fatty acids are not that much of a health concern. This is an opinion that I do not share. On the contrary, other studies show that they are worrying: increased risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, pro-inflammatory effect … Moreover, under pressure from the dairy industry, alternative products such as soybeans cannot state the absence of fatty acids on the labels trans, but also cholesterol in the product.

What is the other problematic point?

The second problem is hormones such as estradiol and estrogen. Our body produces it naturally (more in women) and we are therefore constantly exposed to their proliferation risk. To limit this estrogen pressure and reduce the risk of breast cancer in particular, it is important not to add estrogen to our diet. However, it is found a lot in milk and red meats, and to a lesser extent in fish and eggs. On the contrary, to lower this pressure, there are two solutions: physical activity (this is why young women who do high-level sport have delayed puberty) and the consumption of foods rich in phyto -estrogens, which contrary to popular belief, are not hormones but flavonoids which act as hormone modulators. Soy milk contains it in particular.

You often highlight the benefits of soy beverage compared to cow’s milk …

We can also talk about the excess of methionine in milk proteins. They contain 30% more than our physiological needs. However, this excess methionine, which is a sulfur amino acid, will be eliminated in the form of sulfuric acid which is very acidifying. It is recalled that the acidification of the body leads to calcium leaks. It is also a lively acid which, in excess, increases bad cholesterol, the risk of cancer and which is a precursor of homocysteine. Conversely, soy proteins provide an optimal supply of methionine according to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, editor’s note). And then the soy drink, unlike milk, has a very low insulinemic index. Moreover, there is a real contradiction within health messages in France: you have to limit fatty and sugary products but consume 3 dairy products per day. However, dairy products are very fatty (bad fats moreover) and very sweet (lactose is sugar).

Do you condemn all milk of animal origin?

For me, there aren’t really any differences between the different milks. I see little benefit and I see a lot of risk. We have not yet discussed persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which preferentially accumulate in dairy products. If you do away with stopping milk, you will drastically drop your level of exposure to compounds like PCBs and dioxins. Moreover, there is a very interesting study on this subject, where researchers have chosen butter as a geographic indicator of pollutants.

Go back to the first page of the big milk survey

Its defenders

Jean-Michel Lecerf

Head of the Nutrition Department at the Institut Pasteur de Lille

“Milk is not a bad food!”

Read the interview

Marie-Claude Bertiere

Director of the CNIEL department and nutritionist

“Going without dairy products leads to deficits beyond calcium”

Read the interview

His detractors

Marion Kaplan

Bio-nutritionist specialized in energy medicine

“No milk after 3 years”

Read the interview

Herve Berbille

Engineer in agrifood and graduate in ethno-pharmacology.

“Few benefits and a lot of risks!”

Reread the interview