“No milk in the form of milk after 3 years!”

Marion Kaplan, you are convinced that milk is harmful to health …

For cow’s milk or that of large animals, totally. Do you know of an animal in the wild that drinks milk after weaning? Obviously no! The milk is there to make the intermediary between birth and weaning, that is to say around 2-3 years for humans. The problem is that we have completely dissociated ourselves from nature and we have lost the real benchmarks … And it is like that for a large part of our diet: today when we want to eat healthily, that is to say – say according to the seasons or locally, it has become very complicated. Anyway, we are made to believe that milk is essential when we did without it for a very long time. It has only been three or four generations that we have consumed so much milk.

Many foods appeared late in human history such as potatoes, quinoa or chocolate. However, this does not prevent us from praising their benefits …

It is true, and besides some advocate more and more the return to the “paleo” mode. It corresponds to what the first humans ate spontaneously, in a natural way. Since it is our genes that determine our nutritional needs and the genome has changed little, the diet of the time was perfectly adapted. So how did the hunter-fisherman manage to live without milk?

Concretely, what prompts you to condemn bovine milk?

First, just take a look at the diet that is imposed on dairy cows. These animals are not grain-eaters but herbivores. However, we no longer feed them on grass, so rich in omega-3, but on seeds that they are unable to assimilate and which are stuffed with omega-6. Is it worth remembering that high omega-6 levels compared to omega-3 levels are pro-inflammatory? The livestock system must be completely rethought.

Does that mean you would approve of the milk if the cows were better fed?

Milk as such after 3 years, no. Definitely no. It is also from this age that we lose lactase, an enzyme capable of allowing the dissociation of lactose into glucose and galactose, allowing the proper digestion of milk. Additionally, casein, a protein found in milk, can cross intestinal boundaries before being broken down into an amino acid and entering the blood stream. This will eventually lead to chronic or autoimmune diseases that current medicine is unable to cure. And then, we cannot ignore everything in today’s milk: heavy metals, pesticides or growth hormones that promote cancer. It has been known for a very long time.

Let’s talk about the studies that exist on milk now. There are many, and the latest suggests that milk can be harmful to health. However, it seems that those who consider milk good for the health are much more numerous. How do you explain it?

Precisely, if it was an invariant, that is to say if the studies were unanimous on the subject, okay, but that is not the case. We cannot isolate the dairy product from the rest of the diet: how can these tests be good? And then, each one is made up in a different way, especially in terms of the HLA system (one of the recognition systems specific to the organization, editor’s note). Genes govern the synthesis of particular antigens present in all cells of the body and they are different from one individual to another. They condition, for example, the success of a transplant. We have found that some make people more susceptible to certain viruses, bacteria or diseases, such as the HLA B27 system which is linked to ankylosing spondylitis. We are not equal when it comes to illness, so how can we be equal when it comes to these studies?

So you do not consider the studies on the benefits of omega-3 conclusive?

Indeed, it is difficult to show by scientific studies their benefits. We can only make connections. For example, Inuit who eat very little butter and very little milk but more duck and fish fat suffer much less from cardiovascular disease.

Do you also ban other dairy products?

I do not ban butter, but it must be raw, unpasteurized and organic because all pesticides are concentrated in fat. Then, if you have no disease, no history of diabetes or autoimmune disease, you can’t object to eating a little cheese from time to time, which contains almost no lactase. The problem is, people are often unreasonable. Eating it every day or twice a day is a disaster!

The recommendations of the PNNS or Health Canada, however, recommend 3 servings per day. Mainly because of their richness in calcium and vitamin D, supposedly beneficial for bone health. What do you think ?

In reality, calcium enters only a small part of the phenomenon of decalcification of the skeleton, responsible in particular for osteoporosis. This is mainly due to intestinal permeability which will lead to malabsorption in nutrients, in other words a depletion or a deficiency in certain nutrients such as vitamin D. As regards calcium, there is some in the products. dairy products, but in reality, they are found everywhere! There are so many everywhere that we are overdosed!

How were you personally convinced by the harmful effects of milk?

It’s simple, since I was little, I’ve always been sick. Raised on cow’s milk of course, but I knew long after that everything was linked. I only noticed that the day I fasted, I felt much better. And then after years marked by persistent migraines, overweight, pimples, and finally a Crohn’s disease, I began to find by exploring, by meeting health professionals, homeopathic doctors, Chinese medicine specialists . The tragedy is to listen only to theory, to studies and not to listen to your body.

So, in your opinion, is there an opposition between those which are based on scientific studies and those which are based on experimentation?

There are weaknesses and people who are stronger than others, but milk should certainly not be the subject of a unanimous recommendation! Let people take a month’s test to not consume any dairy products at all, and they will see. What does it cost? They will not have a deficiency!

Go back to the first page of the big milk survey