ce to them, diminishing the effectiveness of prescription antibiotics on disease. Many researchers say reduced effectiveness of antibiotics in recent years, partially caused by the public's consistent ingestion of low levels of the drugs, is causing a rebirth of diseases such as tuberculosis, previously thought to be eradicated with the dawn of modern vaccinations.

What does this mean

On the first day that moms walked the earth, the first thing out of their mouths probably was: "Finish your milk". That's because since the dawn of Mom, there has always been an expert that will vouch for the nutritional superiority of milk, what with its high levels of protein, vitamin D, and, most important, calcium. And who can fault moms for listening to scientists, especially when for once they seemed to universally agree on something? But they don't agree any longer. A group of dissenters is getting bigger and bigger as some new studies are being done on the old creamy wonder milk.

Milk first came under fire during the 1980s as scientific studies were conducted that found traces of the antibiotic drugs given to dairy cows to keep them healthy and productive. Though the residues were fairly minimal, some experts cautioned that traces of antibiotics such as penicillin could cause reactions in those allergic to the drug. This left many wonderings if we had any way to know just what we are ingesting when we drink a glass of milk.

The milk debate was stoked again in late 1994 as the FDA approved for use in dairy cows a new synthetic growth hormone known as bovine somatotropin, more familiar to many of us as bovine growth hormone, or BGH. Approval of the man-made BGH had been delayed because of evidence that the hormone increased the occurrence of mastitis, an udder infection that is treated with even more antibiotics. There is some evidence that drinking milk that contains low levels of antibiotics may cause the body to develop a resistance to them, diminishing the effectiveness of prescription antibiotics on disease. Many researchers say reduced effectiveness of antibiotics in recent years, partially caused by the public's consistent ingestion of low levels of the drugs, is causing a rebirth of diseases such as tuberculosis, previously thought to be eradicated with the dawn of modern vaccinations.

What does this mean

nce they seemed to universally agree on something? But they don't agree any longer. A group of dissenters is getting bigger and bigger as some new studies are being done on the old creamy wonder milk.

Milk first came under fire during the 1980s as scientific studies were conducted that found traces of the antibiotic drugs given to dairy cows to keep them healthy and productive. Though the residues were fairly minimal, some experts cautioned that traces of antibiotics such as penicillin could cause reactions in those allergic to the drug. This left many wonderings if we had any way to know just what we are ingesting when we drink a glass of milk.

The milk debate was stoked again in late 1994 as the FDA approved for use in dairy cows a new synthetic growth hormone known as bovine somatotropin, more familiar to many of us as bovine growth hormone, or BGH. Approval of the man-made BGH had been delayed because of evidence that the hormone increased the occurrence of mastitis, an udder infection that is treated with even more antibiotics. There is some evidence that drinking milk that contains low levels of antibiotics may cause the body to develop a resistance to them, diminishing the effectiveness of prescription antibiotics on disease. Many researchers say reduced effectiveness of antibiotics in recent years, partially caused by the public's consistent ingestion of low levels of the drugs, is causing a rebirth of diseases such as tuberculosis, previously thought to be eradicated with the dawn of modern vaccinations.

What does this mean

the residues were fairly minimal, some experts cautioned that traces of antibiotics such as penicillin could cause reactions in those allergic to the drug. This left many wonderings if we had any way to know just what we are ingesting when we drink a glass of milk.

The milk debate was stoked again in late 1994 as the FDA approved for use in dairy cows a new synthetic growth hormone known as bovine somatotropin, more familiar to many of us as bovine growth hormone, or BGH. Approval of the man-made BGH had been delayed because of evidence that the hormone increased the occurrence of mastitis, an udder infection that is treated with even more antibiotics. There is some evidence that drinking milk that contains low levels of antibiotics may cause the body to develop a resistance to them, diminishing the effectiveness of prescription antibiotics on disease. Many researchers say reduced effectiveness of antibiotics in recent years, partially caused by the public's consistent ingestion of low levels of the drugs, is causing a rebirth of diseases such as tuberculosis, previously thought to be eradicated with the dawn of modern vaccinations.

What does this mean

n as bovine somatotropin, more familiar to many of us as bovine growth hormone, or BGH. Approval of the man-made BGH had been delayed because of evidence that the hormone increased the occurrence of mastitis, an udder infection that is treated with even more antibiotics. There is some evidence that drinking milk that contains low levels of antibiotics may cause the body to develop a resistance to them, diminishing the effectiveness of prescription antibiotics on disease. Many researchers say reduced effectiveness of antibiotics in recent years, partially caused by the public's consistent ingestion of low levels of the drugs, is causing a rebirth of diseases such as tuberculosis, previously thought to be eradicated with the dawn of modern vaccinations.

What does this mean

ce to them, diminishing the effectiveness of prescription antibiotics on disease. Many researchers say reduced effectiveness of antibiotics in recent years, partially caused by the public's consistent ingestion of low levels of the drugs, is causing a rebirth of diseases such as tuberculosis, previously thought to be eradicated with the dawn of modern vaccinations.

What does this mean to us, you ask? Maybe nothing, or maybe something, depending on how much these studies scare you, and whether you want to keep dairy products as a part of your diet plan. We certainly don't need the saturated fat and cholesterol that most milk contains. A 1-cup serving of 1% milk has 100 calories, 10 grams of cholesterol, and 10% of your recommended daily saturated fat intake. And how there are even more studies that question whether the vitamins and minerals we have been assured milk contains are actually present at the right levels. Take vitamin D for instance: Recent samples from different milks show that its level can vary dramatically from glass to glass.

The biggest selling point for milk has always been its calcium, used by children in their bone development, and by adults to prevent bone deterioration, or osteoporosis. Here is where the area regarding milk becomes particularly gray. Some researchers have conducted studies indicating that the body absorbs calcium better from other sources, including broccoli, kale, and bok choy, but others have disagreed, saying that to get the same amount of calcium that you would in a glass of milk, you would have to eat quite a bit of broccoli. Nothing truly conclusive has been gained from any of these studies. Maybe in the coming years that will change. Until that happens, drinking milk remains a careful weighing of the potential pros and cons for both yourself and your family.