Amanda's Own Dairy-Free Chocolate Confections

Beth Cherico of Amanda's Own Confections got in touch to let me know of her web site. Amanda is Beth's food allergic daughter, for whom Beth developed a line of dairy-free, nut-free and egg-free chocolates and dairy-free, nut-free and egg-free chocolate chips.

The site also says:

The chocolate is made on dedicated equipment that is free of all dairy and nut ingredients. We do not use dairy or nuts in any of our products so there is no chance for cross-contamination of our ingredients.

There are specialty pages for holiday chocolate gifts, recipes, and more on the site.

The web site is www.amandasown.com.

Here's the contact info:

Amanda's Own Confections
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070
Email: admin@amandasown.com
Phone: 440-570-6359

Good luck, Beth.

GOODBODY Lactose-Free Frozen Dessert

I'll be adding some new products to my Product Clearinghouse soon. And I'll be debuting them here.

One is GOODBODY, a frozen ice "cream" bar, available in two varieties, Refresh and Reward, and in a total of six different flavors. The GOODBODY Refresh bars are vanilla bars coated with sorbet in Raspberry, Strawberry and Tropical flavors. The GOODBODY Reward bars come in Chocolate Peanut Butter, Chocolate Banana and Double Dutch Chocolate.

I'm not sure what's in them, since they tell a lot about what's not. According to the press release the bars have:

no preservatives, no saturated fat, no trans fats, no artificial flavors, colors, or sweeteners, no high fructose corn syrup and no cholesterol. Most flavors are fat free, only 120 calories and have more fiber than a whole apple and more calcium than an 8 oz. glass of milk, yet they are also lactose free. GOODBODY also provides 100 percent of daily value of Vitamin C and generous levels of antioxidant vitamins A and E.

So look for GOODBODY bars. Or is that Goodbody bars, and the all caps is just an affectation of the press release? Some questions are beyond the power the blogging.

Lactose Intolerance FAQ and Links

About.com usually does a good job in compiling straightforward answers to questions.

Their Lactose Intolerance page has a long Q and A about LI, with short answers on the main page and links to longer articles, as well as to other sites with info on the subject.

The page supplements the more varied information on my site. Check out both if you can't easily find what you're looking for on one.

Nisin. The Milk Derivative You've Never Heard Of

The new food labeling law doesn't really change all that much, as most responsible companies have been warning consumers about the presence of milk and milk derivatives in their products for years.

Still, getting the cheaper and more recalcitrant companies to comply is a good thing.

And so are the spate of articles talking about the law and giving examples of foods that will trigger the mandatory labeling.

Here's one. "Label law puts food allergens in spotlight," by Sonja Isger in the Palm Beach Post.

The packaging on the cheese said it was "nondairy," that it contained no milk, that it was made with rice. But when Andy Weir bit into it, the toddler with an allergy to milk swelled in reaction.

What'd his mom miss on that label?

"Casein," Diana Weir said.

Casein. Caseinates. Curds. Ghee. Lactoferrin. Whey. Nisin. In food-ingredient lingo, they all mean "contains milk."

Wait a minute. Nisin?

Yep. Nisin (pronounced NYE-sin) is a protein antibiotic used for the last 40 or so years as a food preservative. From Answers.com.

Nisin is produced by fermentation using the bacterium Lactococcus lactis . Commercially it is obtained from natural substrates including milk and is not chemically synthesized. It is used in processed cheese production to extend shelf life by suppressing gram-positive spoilage and pathogenic bacteria. There are many other applications of this preservative in food and beverage production.

The problem with commercial nisin is that it's cut with milk. According to the Natural and Organic News column, produced by by Jane Andrews, the Corporate Nutritionist for the Wegmans supermarket chain:

If you think that all things natural are always safe to eat, then you're not thinking of people with food allergies. To anyone else, a natural preservative called Nisin that's now used in several sauces made in our Central Kitchen sounds innocent. Pronounced NYE-sin, it's a powdered additive that's about 24% milk solids because it's made from milk through bacterial fermentation. That's fine for most people, but if you have an allergy to milk protein or have lactose intolerance, you need to know it's there. (Posted 04-29-05)

Now you do. Help spread the word.

For further information on, or names of, products or ingredients derived from milk, look at the following pages on my website: The SuperGuide to Dairy Products or Dairy or Nondairy? The Experts Speak.

A2 Milk Claims Unproven

What is it with all the milk claims lately?

Australians and New Zealanders (New Zealandites?) beware. A new type of "milk anyone can drink" is sweeping your side of the world.

The culprit is A2 milk, which is milk that contains more of the A2 beta casein protein. The milk comes from cows that naturally produce more of this particular protein because of a tiny mutation in amino acid linkage.

The A2 Corporation's website is actually quite conservative in its claims about its product.

It says:

The potential advantages of A2 Milk™ were first identified through epidemiological studies which showed that in countries where the dairy herds produced a higher proportion of the A2 protein in their milk, there was a significantly lower incidence of childhood diabetes and coronary heart disease. Putting it another way, in countries where the milk contained more of the A1 variant of beta-casein there was a higher incidence of such diseases.

It was recognized that this statistical correlation was not, in itself, proof of a beneficial effect of the A2 beta casein in relation to disease, or of a causal connection between A1 beta-casein and such conditions, but the link appeared so strong that the findings have triggered further study and review.

The research is far from complete and is ongoing, but results to date suggest not only a statistical link but also a mechanism by which the consumption of A1 beta-casein or related subvariants may play a contributing part in the development or aggravation of certain diseases and conditions in some susceptible individuals.

Newspapers have no such compunctions. An article, " Experts in a froth over milk," by Louise Pemble in The Sunday Times of Australia, has naturally found someone who gives the milk magical properties:

But A2 milk has a dedicated following in Australia and New Zealand, with devotees arguing it can be enjoyed by allergy sufferers and that it reduces the symptoms of ADHD, autism and schizophrenia. …

Perth mother Shona Stubberfield has been having milk freighted from Brisbane for her son, who has been allergic to milk since birth.

She was sceptical of claims that A2 milk did not benefit those with a dairy intolerance.

Ms Stubberfield said that until she switched to A2 milk, she could not even breastfeed her son, Luke, without him vomiting.

"I tried all the medications for reflux, but after every feed he would throw up," she said.

"In three days, after eliminating all dairy from my diet, he stopped throwing up. He stopped screaming at night. He was a new baby."

Allergies to particular fractions of the casein family of protein are very common, true. That's the reason why goat's milk, whose casein composition is very different from that of cow's milk, is sometimes better tolerated by those who are allergic. In fact, goat's milk naturally contains more of the A2 beta casein. Without the further study that even the company admits is needed, however, there is no way to tell whether this tolerance will also be true for A2 cow's milk.

A good FAQ on A2 milk has been put out by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.

Rumors are rife that A2 milk will soon be introduced into the United States and elsewhere outside of New Zealand and Australia, especially since A2 now has a new owner. Tread very cautiously if you try this, although those who already drink goat's milk for allergy reasons should have more success. Remember that the lactose content will be identical to regular cow's milk, so if you're lactose intolerant it's no different than any other type of liquid milk.

Modified Milk Ingredients

I recently received an email asking about what "modified milk ingredients" might mean when part of a food ingredients list.

It's not easy to stump me, but that succeeded. Fortunately a quick trip through Google gave me the info that it is a term specific to Canada and their Food and Drug Regulations (FDR).

According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency:

"Modified milk ingredients are defined in item 7.1, subsection B.01.010 (3) of the FDR, as "any of the following in liquid, concentrated, dry, frozen or reconstituted form, namely, calcium reduced skim milk (obtained by the ion-exchange process), casein, caseinates, cultured milk products, milk serum proteins, ultrafiltered milk, whey, whey butter, whey cream and any other component of milk the chemical state of which has been altered from that in which it is found in milk".

That's about as all encompassing as you can get, so it anyone's guess what individual fraction of milk might be modified in a specific food. There's nothing like it down here in the States so I have no guidance as to what it usually might mean.

None of the proteins listed - casein, caseinate, milk serum proteins - would normally contain lactose, but the other forms would.

I'd treat any food with modified milk ingredients as a dairy product. Either use lactase pills or avoid.

Canada – it really is a separate country!

More Goat Milk Nonsense

Goats are becoming big business, so I suppose articles on the wonders of goat's milk will proliferate over the next few years.

And so will the misinformation they spew about goat's milk.

Take "Got Goat?" by Emily Young of the Salem News Online.

She's interviewing goat farmer Elizabeth Mulholland, who says, no, you won't believe me unless I quote it:

"From what I've read, goat milk has a different lactose makeup than cow milk. There are more molecules, smaller ones, that make it easier to digest. That's the theory," Mulholland said.

Aarrrggghhh! Smaller molecules? Who's teaching this idiocy?

And the article goes on to say, presumably getting its [mis]information from Mulholland:

Goat milk, like human milk, does not contain the major protein of cow milk to which many people, including babies, are allergic.

Wrong again. Goat's milk contains both casein and whey proteins, just like cow's milk (and mother's milk, for that matter). It just contains different and different amounts of the casein protein fractions (types) so that the allertgic potential is lessened.

Here's what someone with a brain in her head has to say. From the Comparing Milk: Human, Cow, Goat & Commercial Infant Formula site of Stephanie Clark, Ph.D, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Washington State University:

Distinguishing between allergies and lactose intolerance:

Allergies and lactose intolerance are different things. An allergic reaction is the body's response to a foreign body (antigen), typically proteins. Goat milk proteins have a slightly different amino acid structure than cow milk proteins. Thus, a person who produces antibodies to cow milk proteins, may not produce antibodies to goat milk proteins.

However, there is no guarantee that a person who is allergic to cow milk will not be allergic to goat milk, because the milks are similar.

Lactose intolerance results from a person's inability to digest lactose. Lactose is present in all milks. Thus, goat milk can not successfully be substituted for cow milk in cases of lactose intolerance.

See also my recent entry Goat's Milk for Lactose Intolerants? No.

Raw Milk Not for Lactose Intolerants

Raw milk is all over the news again, the latest round in this culture war, pardon the pun. Time to sort out fact from fiction.

Raw milk is just milk straight from the cow, with no processing. No homogenizing, no pasteurization, no added vitamins. These days it's also touted by the organic crowd if the cows have not been given the usual antibiotics to protect them from the plague of illnesses that farm cows are susceptible to.

For most of humanity's history, pretty much up until the 20th century, raw milk was the only kind of milk anybody knew. You lived with your animals or very close to them. You or your family or the nearby farmer milked the animal – cow, goat, sheep, camel, yak, whatever – and brought the bucket home. The cream rose to the top and was skimmed off to make butter or mixed in for a richer and fattier milk.

Even when cities developed, the animals were kept close by. In New England villages, for example, the commons – the grassy open area in the center of town – had cows grazing on them. Giant London was full of cows after it had grown to the largest city in the world.

This couldn't last. Cities eventually grew too big for everyone to get their milk from small herds. City dwellers objected to the smell and waste from cows in their midst. Farms moved outside cities and newfangled ways of transportation, like the milk train and later the refrigerated train car, allowed milk to be delivered fresh from the farm to an urban audience. Well, fairly fresh. The well-off got the best milk and the poor got milk from open containers that arrived looking like "dirty cheese."

After Louis Pasteur put forth his germ theory, doctors and scientists started realizing that warm raw milk was an excellent breeding ground for bacteria. Pasteurization – the heating of milk for a period long enough to kill the bacteria – became recommended for all milk.

The one problem with pasteurization is that heating milk changes its taste. The longer milk is cooked and the higher the temperature, the more the taste changes. Over a long period an optimal combination of the two was standardized. (Today, there is also ultra-high-temperature (UHT) pasteurization, which cooks the milk for a very high temperature but for a very short time. This allows milk to be shelf-stable, either giving it a much longer shelf life in the refrigerator case or go without refrigeration in the store entirely. Almost all lactase-reduced milk is UHT treated because its smaller volume of sales doesn't allow for the quick in-store turnover of regular milk. Some small regional firms may make "fresh pasteurized" lactase-reduced milk, but you would have to check locally for it.)

The raw milk forces did not go quietly. They advocated the creation of "model farms," in which careful and continual care of the cows and quick delivery to stores would eliminate the need for pasteurization and any changes in taste or any of the reduction of nutrient content that they claimed pasteurization imparted.

The model farms worked as models. They all failed in production for several reasons. First, the extra expense required for continual care drove up the costs of the milk so that the target audience – the poor who required milk for nutrition – couldn't afford it. Second, the larger the herd the more difficult and expensive continual care became. And third, no matter how careful they seemed to be, problems always crept in somewhere, either from diseases to the cows themselves or inadequately perfect handling before the milk got to the final drinker.

The mass market demanded mass milk. Controlled, cheap, standardized, guaranteed healthy milk in mass quantities. Pasteurization laws were passed in every state. Milk was homogenized so that the cream was evenly distributed throughout. Vitamins A and D, lacking or inadequate in cow's milk, were made mandatory as add-ons. Milk, "nature's perfect food," needed some tweaking to arrive that way at the kitchen table.

Cut to the present. Milk's reputation has taken numerous hits over the last few decades. Hormones and antibiotics given to cows to boost production and protect them against the diseases inherent in mass factory farms have been decried as tainting the milk itself. Whole milk's fat is accused for the obesity crisis in the nation's youth. Anti-meat forces want all milk taken off the menu.

Some of the milk forces have battled back by eliminating the changes that mass milk demanded. Some don't want homogenization. Some don't want pasteurization. Some don't add the hormones and antibiotics to the cow's feed. Some don't do any of these things.

Despite raw milk's checkered history, small farms have popped up all over the country to provide milk straight from the cow to the few who are willing to go out of their way to seek it out. Most states either prohibit the sale of raw milk or impose strict regulations on its sale, but it is generally available on farms or in natural foods stores in a multitude of places.

But there continue to be sporadic problems. In fact, the FDA just put out a warning after an E. coli outbreak in Washington:

Following an outbreak in the state of Washington, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning the public against drinking raw milk because it may contain harmful bacteria that can cause life-threatening illnesses. Raw milk is not treated or pasteurized to remove disease-causing bacteria.

The risk of drinking raw milk was most recently demonstrated in Washington State by an outbreak associated with raw milk containing the bacteria called Escherichia coli O157:H7 (E. coli). To date, eight illness have been reported in Washington state, several of which were in children. Two of the children remain hospitalized. Health authorities have identified locally sold raw milk as a source of the outbreak, and have ordered the unlicensed dairy to shut down.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 300 people in the United States became ill by drinking raw milk or eating cheese made from raw milk in 2001, and nearly 200 became ill from these products in 2002.

The Associated Press later ran a follow-up story in which the dairy denied that it's milk was the source of the contamination. However, that the dairy was unlicensed and illegal, and that three of its own employees got sick lessens any defense that they make. Salmonella bacteria were also recently found in raw milk from a dairy in Arizona. Other illnesses have been reported in Oregon and Pennsylvania.

To quote Ruth Kava, Director of Nutrition for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH):

As part of the misguided alternative health movement, some have bought into the myth that raw milk is nutritionally and otherwise superior to milk that has been processed in any way.

Some parents also have "unwarranted fears," of genetically-engineered hormones given to cows to prolong lactation. Neither of these myths is true; but that hasn't stopped the proliferation of farms that will provide the unwary with supposedly beneficial raw milk.

The FDA says flatly that:

There is no meaningful difference in the nutritional value of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk.

The unfortunate truth is that raw milk may be a wonderful, better-tasting product if everything associated with it is done perfectly, but the risks associated with it are high. Why? Here's a quote from Dr. Bill Keene, who was a senior epidemiologist for the Oregon State Department of Health:

The risks involved with drinking raw milk are clear-cut for Keene: “When you milk a cow, fecal organisms always end up in the milk, along with skin tissue from the cow’s teat. If you test milk, it has bacteria in it. Even if you do a good job milking a cow there’s still bacteria present. This may be harmless bacteria for the most part, but from time to time it can make you really sick.”

The public debate regarding the health benefits and risks of drinking raw milk appears to come down to what a consumer decides to believe, Paulson said. “It’s a lot like a religion for some. They decide drinking raw milk is what’s best, and there’s not much the law can do to protect people from themselves.”

“Our job is to try to present the information,” Keene said. “And then we say, ‘Good luck, hope you get away with it.'"

My sentiments exactly.

So what does this have to do with lactose intolerance? After all, nobody would make the claim that raw milk should or could be for those with LI.

Unbelievably, this isn't the case. The Organic Pastures Dairy Company has the following sentence on its website as one of its "health boosting rewards" for raw milk:

Lactose intolerant consumers can eat raw milk because lactase producing bacteria are present.

Really? Then how do you explain the ten thousand years of symptoms from those non-mutants who drank raw milk in the past? Are there are chemical tests or double-blind medical studies on the site to back this up? Of course not. On the contrary, they tout tests showing their low bacteria count and give a lactose percentage of 4.23%, about normal. How they reconcile the two claims is beyond me. Yet, these claims are being repeated verbatim in articles by raw milk supporters.

Unless and until the notion that those of us with lactose intolerance can drink raw milk is proven scientifically, treat raw milk exactly as you would regular milk. You can have it in the same amounts, drink it with lactase pills, or leave it alone. Just don't trust in any magic claims.

Lactose Intolerance Doesn't Cause Strokes. Does It?

You'll notice in the About Me column off to the right that I had a mild stroke this year, forcing me to take several months off. No, the fact that I'm lactose intolerant had nothing to do with it. Nothing, nothing, nothing. I'm saying that very, very loudly because some of you out there would be writing in tomorrow telling me that their strokes really were caused by LI. No. They weren't. Nobody can possibly be that ignorant of LI, you say. That's only because you don't read my mail. You wouldn't believe what people already think that LI can cause. Oy.

Then again, "cause" is a loose term. To my stun and amaze, this very week I stumbled across an article by Howard Reich of the Chicago Tribune, reprinted in about a million smaller papers. It concerns the medical travails of Alexei Sultanov, a concert pianist with a long history of medical problems. And the stroke he had. In the thalamus, same as mine. "Caused" by lactose intolerance. Well, in a really, really, really loose sense of the word "cause." Let me excerpt just the few relevant sentences.

On a February evening in 2001, Sultanov walked into the bathroom in the Fort Worth home he shared with his wife, leaned over the toilet and purged his dinner.

A few minutes earlier, he had eaten a crock of French onion soup that he had cooked, promising himself he would not eat the cheese because he was lactose intolerant.

But he couldn't resist its aroma and taste. After he devoured the food, his stomach began to ache, causing waves of nausea.

He decided to do what he had done since childhood - retreat to the bathroom to empty himself of his meal. But while doing so he became dizzy, lost his balance and struck the left side of his head against the porcelain sink.

…

Cranial scans showed the disaster looming inside his head. So much blood was amassing, with nowhere to go, that it began pushing his brain from left to right.

As increasing amounts of blood pummeled the organ, blood vessels to his brain stem and other areas were severed or crushed, denying vital oxygen and glucose to vulnerable tissue.

Not one but five strokes racked Sultanov's brain as he lay in the hospital.

Well. Man. Not good. Though spoilsport me does need to point out that nausea isn't a symptom of LI. Whatever.

Bathroom safety. Our resolution for the New Year.

Major Change in Labeling Law Scheduled for January 1

The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA), passed back in 2004, finally goes into effect on January 1, 2006.

The full text of the bill, formally Title II of Public Law 108-282, can be found here.

The presence of any of eight potential major allergens - milk, egg, fish (e.g., bass, flounder, or cod), Crustacean shellfish (e.g., crab, lobster, or shrimp), tree nuts (e.g., almonds, pecans, or walnuts), wheat, peanuts, and soybeans – must now be revealed in plain English and in easy-to-see and –read form on labels.

What does mean for those with milk allergies, or who want to avoid milk for other reasons? I copied the following from about.com:

• List the allergen on the ingredient list. For example: MILK, listed with other ingredients.
  
  
• Use the word "Contains" followed by the name of the major food allergen, printed at the end of the ingredient list or next to it. For example: CONTAINS MILK.
  
  
• Use a parenthetical statement to clarify technical ingredient terms. For example: CASEIN (MILK), or WHEY (MILK).

Most labels already do have this information in the U.S. Still, making sure that all labels do is an important step for the millions who must watch out for potential allergens.

And the Act also calls for follow-ups, including a study on the effectiveness of the legislation and the collecting and publishing of research pertaining to food allergies.

Santa's Kringle Kruncher

Milk and cookies. Milk and cookies. Milk and cookies. Ten million more homes to go. Milk and cookies. Milk and cookies. Milk and cookies. No wonder Santa is a tub o' lard who needs to rest up for the next 364 days.

What Santa needs is some low-fat soy milk and dairy-free cookies. Or even better, something to get around all those calories.

So a huge cheer for Shelby Macy, 12, of Beaverton, Oregon, who won first prize in the pre-teen category in The [Portland] Oregonian's Design Santa's New Sled contest with the following entry:

"Blitzn" was a careful rendering of Santa's sleigh along with detailed descriptions of its features, which propelled this entry to the front. The sleigh features a toy/coal dispenser -- to supply the needs of both good and bad children -- and a unique Kringle Kruncher, which transforms milk and cookies into energy for a lactose-intolerant Santa.

Yay, Shelby!

Lactose Intolerant? Blame Your Ancestors

I've said this before, mainly in my book - Milk Is Not for Every Body - but whether you are or aren't lactose intolerant depends mostly on whether your ancestors were.
And your ancestors' decision whether or not to domesticate milkable animals for dairy products led to the spread of the mutation that allows for lactose tolerance all through adulthood.

More confirmation of this comes from the work of evolutionary biologist Paul Sherman, a professor of neurobiology and behavior at Cornell University. His work appeared in a recent issue of Evolution and Human Behavior, but I'm going to spare you and just quote from an article about it, written by Michael Kanellos at CNET News.

Researchers at Cornell University have shown in a recent study that lactose intolerance is largely a factor of cultural evolution. That is, members of ethnic groups that emerged in regions where raising cattle was common often are more genetically predisposed to digest milk products. Meanwhile, people whose ancestors came from regions where extreme temperatures, short growing seasons and dangerous animal-borne diseases made animal husbandry expensive and difficult often feel cramped and nauseous after eating dairy products.

In cheese-happy Denmark, for instance, only 2 percent of the population studied was lactose intolerant. In Zambia, near the equator, 100 percent of the individuals studied were lactose intolerant.

"The implication is that harsh climates and dangerous diseases negatively impact dairy herding and geographically restrict the availability of milk, and that humans have physiologically adapted to that," Sherman said.

The key to lactose intolerance is the enzyme lactase, which is required to digest milk. Although infants around the world produce the enzyme, more than half the people in the world, particularly those of Asian and African descent, stop producing it as they mature. People of northern European descent tend to continue to produce the enzyme because of a genetic mutation, according to Sherman. Thus, they can drink milk throughout life.

The full journal article can be found at Bloom, G. and P.W. Sherman. 2005. Dairying barriers and the distribution of lactose malabsorption. Evolution and Human Behavior 26:301-312.

Goat's Milk for Lactose Intolerants? No.

Due to the pernicious influence of the Internet, which spreads misinformation worldwide in seconds, I've been getting a lot of people asking whether they can switch to goat's milk if they are lactose intolerant.

The simple, direct, and correct answer is no.

Almost all of the animal milks that humans have used over the centuries are very close to one another in lactose content. They tend to have 4% - 5% lactose, allowing for the inevitable variations due to breeds and feeds. (See my Lactose Zoo page for detailed percentages.)

Why the confusion, then? Goat's milk – along with all the other animal milks – has a markedly different set of proteins, especially casein proteins, than cow's milk does. Those with Cow's Milk Protein Allergy (CMPA) may find that they can tolerate goat's milk without symptoms. Emphasis on the may. I would not suggest goat's milk to those severely anaphylactic to cow's milk. The rest of you with milk allergy, however, and that's the majority, may be in luck.

An article, "Cow or goat: which milk is better?", by Jane Clarke, in The Times of London adds some other advantages and warnings:

Some young children with eczema and other allergies may do better with goat’s milk formula than cow’s milk or soya milk products, as goat’s milk is much closer in molecular structure to mother’s milk. These formulas are also higher in essential fatty acids than cow’s milk formulas.

The mineral content of both milks is generally similar, although goat’s contains slightly less calcium and slightly more vitamin A, potassium and selenium, which is an antioxidant.

Finally, a warning to pregnant women. Listeria is found in unpasteurised goat’s milk, yoghurt and cheese, so you need to avoid all of these and drink only pasteurised goat’s milk. The FSA advises avoiding soft goat’s cheeses such as chèvre.

Lactose intolerance remains a problem with the lactose, so if you do try goat's milk, remember to take your lactase pills, just as you would when having cow's milk.

No Need to Avoid Milk Even If You Have Symptoms Says New Study

According to medpagetoday.com, a new study by a leading Finnish research team denies that cow's milk is the cause of their gastrointestinal symptoms.

HELSINKI, Finland, Dec. 16 - Milk and other lactose-rich products may be getting a bum rap for food-related gastrointestinal symptoms, researchers here say.

The real culprit could well be an as-yet uncharacterized intestinal immune-mediated disorder, reported Laura Paajanen, M.D., of the Foundation for Nutrition Research here in the December issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
…

"We conclude that food-related gastrointestinal symptoms in young adults are caused by unspecific and unknown traits of altered mucosal immune response rather than by cow milk, as is often suspected by the patient," the study authors wrote.

"We suggest that this new entity, i.e., intestinal immune-mediated disorder, may be a self-perpetuating disease with fluctuations in symptoms, they wrote. "An autoimmune characteristic of the syndrome, at least in a subgroup of the affected subjects, cannot be ruled out."

Individuals who avoid milk and diary products in the mistaken belief that these are the source of their GI symptoms may not be getting important nutrients, they added.

Primary source: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Source reference: Paajanen L et al. Cow milk not responsible for most gastrointestinal immune-like syndromes-evidence from a population-based study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2005; 82:1327-1235.

As I've often argued, never assume that all your symptoms are coming from one food unless you have done a lengthy and exhaustive food diary to carefully study every food that you are eating. Symptoms from food are often hard to pin down. Milk is not always to blame, and there is no need to take it out of your diet unless you are forced to.

Switching Off Lactose Intolerance... Someday

Lactose intolerance is caused by a gene turning off the production of the lactase enzyme that digests lactose. Simple as that.

That has led many people to wonder whether switching off that signal in the cells that manufacture lactase would lead to permanent lactase production.

In fact, a few years ago Dr. Matthew During of the Central Nervous System Gene Therapy Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia did a series of experiments on rats that accomplished exactly that. See my article on his work.

He was researching toward a breakthrough in diabetes, though, so don't expect to see a cure for LI any time soon.

I mention all this because Scientific American just published a nifty explanation of how scientists do cell-switching, with lactose digestion leading to the understanding of just how to do it.

50 years ago.

Oh well, at least they're still working on it. Maybe someday.

Enfamil Gentlease LIPIL Infant Formula Now Available

Mead Johnson has announced a new infant formula that may be an intermediate step before going to soy-based formulas for infants with temporary breastfeeding problems.

Here's the press release:

EVANSVILLE, Ind., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- New Enfamil Gentlease LIPIL infant formula is now available, making it the first and only formula in the U.S. that combines partially broken down whey and casein milk proteins, reduced lactose and LIPIL. LIPIL is Mead Johnson's blend of DHA and ARA, two nutrients also found in breast milk that promote babies' brain and eye development. Enfamil Gentlease LIPIL is designed for feeding term infants with fussiness or gas.

"Enfamil Gentlease is a great alternative for formula fed infants who are experiencing common feeding problems such as gas or fussiness," said Jon Vanderhoof, MD, Vice President of Global Medical Affairs for Mead Johnson Nutritionals. "Its unique formulation will provide mothers with a formula choice that doesn't eliminate all the lactose or any of the cow's milk protein."

Gas and fussiness in infants can be caused by many factors. Physicians differ in their approaches to managing feeding problems in formula fed infants, but historically, first-line therapies have involved switching the infant to either a milk-based, lactose-free formula, which contains cow's milk protein but no lactose, or switching to a soy protein-based formula, which contains no cow's milk protein or lactose.

Breast milk is best for babies, but for those babies that are fed infant formula, formulas containing cow's milk protein rather than soy protein are usually preferred. When switching from a routine infant formula because of feeding tolerance issues, mothers and health care professionals may be willing to try a milk-based formula with proteins that have been partially broken down. Likewise, the reduced lactose level, when compared to full-lactose, routine milk-based formulas, may help infants when they have temporary trouble with lactose. The introduction of Enfamil Gentlease LIPIL allows physicians to recommend an infant formula with protein from cow's milk, the preferred protein source for formula-fed infants, and with lactose, the primary carbohydrate in human milk, but at a reduced level.

Enfamil Gentlease LIPIL is now available. Consumers can call 1-800-BABY-123 for assistance in locating Enfamil Gentlease LIPIL at a store in their area. Mead Johnson Nutritionals is a world leader in nutrition, dedicated to giving infants and children their best start in life. Mead Johnson & Company is a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Go to the Mead Johnson website for additional contact information.

Teaching Lactose and Lactase

A wonderful site, www.scienceprojects.com, has a long list of simple teaching experiments that teachers can do to show how lactase digests lactose, among other nifty things.

Lactase

Lactase Inhibition

A New Pedagogy for the Lac-Operon

Control of Lactase Activity: Genetic and Enzymatic Levels of Control

Exploring the Realm of the Steady State in E. coli

If you poke around on the site, there's probably lots more of interest. I'd love to see students come out of school already knowing how lactose digestion works.

And I can't help mentioning an old favorite here, from San Francisco's marvelous Exploratorium. Milk Makes Me Sick: Exploration of the Basis of Lactose Intolerance.

Lactagen Response - It Worked for Her

In response to my earlier post -Lactagen: Questions, No Answers, I received an email from Patricia S. She gave me permission to post her message her on the Planet Lactose blog and also on the Lactagen page on my website.

I found your site through the Lactagen website and saw that if someone went through the program that you wanted them to email you with all the details, so that's why I'm writing.

There's really nothing to tell other than it worked. I had been lactose intolerant for almost 4 years, got an email that was advertising Lactagen and various other products. Normally I would've trashed the email but when I saw the word lactose I figured I might as well read it. I checked out the website and thought to myself that it was expensive however it it worked then it was worth the money and if it didn't there was a 6 month money back guarantee. So either way I couldn't lose. My total cost with shipping & tax was $148 and change.

I followed the program to a "t" and didn't have any problems until the very last day when I had my last 12 ounce glass of milk. Got all the symptoms as if I just ate a hunk of cheese (bloating, massive diarrhea) except the massive and painful cramping. After my ordeal (when I was free of the bathroom), I called the Lactagen company up and one of their experts asked what I had for dinner with the milk. I told him, and there was absolutely nothing I ate that had any trace of dairy in it. So we talked for a bit, he asked my symptoms, and when I said I did not have any of the severe cramping that I normally did he said it was probably something I ate that just upset my system and to restart the last 3 days of the program were you just drink the various ounces of milk but also to introduce one other think of dairy into my diet like having a cheeseburger for lunch one day, cheesecake the next day, etc. This seemed to work and so far I have been able to eat dairy with no problems at all!

So for your reference the Lactagen program really does work!

And a follow-up:

I forgot to mention that prior to trying Lactagen, I did try Lactaid and Ultra Lactaid pills and for the first few years it worked about 99% of the time, then it started dropping and by last July 2004 it completely stopped. Basically, it was just a band-aid, a very temporary band-aid. And of course, it was at the worse possible time...while I was on a cruise! Let me tell you, it was not too fun watching everyone else eat all those yummy meals & desserts that I couldn't have!

So if you want, you can add this to your website/blog so if someone reads it they will know that I did use the Lactaid pills. Basically, it was just a band-aid, a very temporary band-aid.

I'm for whatever works for people without hurting them. If you have more comments or questions about Lactagen, be sure to leave a comment.

Was Darwin Lactose Intolerant?

You knew it, didn't you? You just knew it. All that controversy over evolution – and it's all our fault.

Sorta. Anthony K Campbell and Stephanie B Matthews recently published a History of Medicine article in the Postgraduate Medical Journal (2005;81:248-251) that makes a case that Charles Darwin's lifelong illnesses were really symptoms of "systematic lactose intolerance."

Here's the abstract:

After returning from the Beagle in 1836, Charles Darwin suffered for over 40 years from long bouts of vomiting, gut pain, headaches, severe tiredness, skin problems, and depression. Twenty doctors failed to treat him. Many books and papers have explained Darwin’s mystery illness as organic or psychosomatic, including arsenic poisoning, Chagas’ disease, multiple allergy, hypochondria, or bereavement syndrome. None stand up to full scrutiny. His medical history shows he had an organic problem, exacerbated by depression. Here we show that all Darwin’s symptoms match systemic lactose intolerance. Vomiting and gut problems showed up two to three hours after a meal, the time it takes for lactose to reach the large intestine. His family history shows a major inherited component, as with genetically predisposed hypolactasia. Darwin only got better when, by chance, he stopped taking milk and cream. Darwin’s illness highlights something else he missed—the importance of lactose in mammalian and human evolution.

Not everybody buys this, of course, but just think if Darwin had made the connection in the 19th century. That sure would have made those long years in the 1970s before I got diagnosed a lot more fun.

If only Darwin had been smarter…

Animal Planet

Just a reminder. All adult mammals are naturally lactose intolerant. And that means no matter how hot it gets, be real careful about sharing your ice cream with your pets.

Vets already know this. The Cincinnati Enquirer ran an article quoting Dr. Tony Buffington, a veterinarian and clinical nutritionist at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Ohio State University.

Moderation is everything, even for animals, Dr. Buffington rightly says:

Give the pooches ice cream in moderation, he suggests, and cut back on other high-fat treats.

"Dogs are also more likely to be lactose intolerant than humans," Buffington says.

But that doesn't mean they can't enjoy a little ice cream occasionally. If the animal shows persistent symptoms of lactose intolerance, such as diarrhea or bloating, then maybe it's time to stop dishing out the ice cream.

On another hot button issue, Dr. Buffington has only seen one case of chocolate intoxication in dogs in 25 years of practice, BTW. Still, his advice is simple: if you want to give your dog a taste of ice cream, make it vanilla.