Outweighing the Benefits of Milk Consumption with Unpopular Opinions

Outweighing the Benefits of Milk Consumption with Unpopular Opinions: Debunking the Fallacies of Milk and the Detrimental Effects of Consuming it Along with Other Animal By-Products to the Country and to Filipinos

Abstract: Milk has been present in our lives since birth as breast milk, but we were not exposed to the consequences of consuming milk that did not come from our mothers and the effects of dairy production to the environment if it continues and the only way to negate its would-be effects is to promote a healthy diet concentrated with plants and the concept of backyard farming to aid in the decrease of hunger and health risks in the country,

At present we live in a world of gadgets and advanced technology wherein almost everything we do is mechanized. It is indeed, glorious; but what is not glorious is the detrimental effects it poses to the environment—effects that people have not anticipated nor expected. In the country, agriculture is the main source of what we consume. This industry is what made our ancestors thrive and sustain their families and tribes. As time progressed, so did agricultural techniques.

Generally, development can be traced by mechanization, especially agriculture. Without improving how commodities are produced, there will be no substantial development in a particular region or community with its production and yield. For instance, rural areas have underdeveloped roads and have remote access to cities and cannot trade their products. Transportation is a key proponent of agriculture and is one of the main problems of farmers. In the Philippines, the main concern of our people is centralizing efforts; we are immensely grouped both in geographical terms and in cultural conditions. Add the fact that the majority of our farmers are practicing on small-scale farms or “backyard farms”, the issue of giving a concrete connection among farmers is a daunting task for the Philippines. Middle men link and integrate the chain of a farmer to a market and vice versa but the arising setback of this is the sheer inefficiency and drawback of income to our farmers. In relation to livestock and agricultural products, this may increase their prices because middlemen externalize their costs (Biglaiser, 1993).

One of the products that cost much because of middlemen and transportation is milk. Here in the country, large-scale manufacturers import dehydrated milk from other countries. Upon arrival in milk factories they add several vitamins and minerals that are missing in milk. It is then either reconstituted or packed in cans or plastic-foil pouches and then shipped or delivered to stores that had ordered milk. This is however a necessity because the numbers of large scale milk producers in the Philippines is insufficient to supply the whole country. But that doesn’t mean we can’t try. In small-scale dairy production, on the on the hand, only local demand and cost-effective orders are supplied for given the scale of their orders.

Although it is given that the Department of Agriculture wants to industrialize dairy production, complete domestic production of livestock (particularly bovine) dairy production must not be encouraged despite the interest of the government in locally producing milk to increase GDP as it is not a sustainable industry and does more harm than good to our resources and environment and health so alternative sources of nutrients found in milk that are already readily available in our country such as vegetables must be promoted instead.

Given the scarce supply, Filipinos are still considered milk drinkers. We put in so much in our diet we have it now in our daily lives especially thanks to media portrayals. When we watch television shows we cannot easily avoid advertisements that show milk and the adverse effects that we may experience without it. Every day, we see advertisements so much that it had instilled in us that we somehow need milk that much to live well and be healthy.

Government Intervention

Last January an article in The Philippine Star announced that the National Dairy Authority will be purchasing almost three hundred cattle from New Zealand under the Philippines-New Zealand Dairy Project in an effort to boost the dairy industry. One of the objectives of this partnership is to increase milk production in which its prerequisite is that cows must be impregnated first.

If the country were to fully industrialize dairy production there will be advancements in technology of course but this will also entail the use of antibiotics to prevent diseases before they happen or during an instance where a cow has mastitis. However, such a practice was discouraged by the NDA administrator who stated that its use must not be abused for it may initially benefit the health of the cow, but in the long run in can increase the resistance of the bacteria targeted and can pose additional health risks to the cattle (Simeon, 2016). Moreover, lactating cows that have been subjected to antibiotic treatment (usually due to mastitis) produce milk that has traces of antibiotics and that milk cannot be used anymore as a product which results to low yields. But such a reminder could not be enough if this information is not disseminated well to cattle farmers; in fact, according to (Maron, Smith, & Nachman, 2013), there is no actual policy yet in regulating the use of antibiotics on animals in the country.

When it comes to milk that can be consumed, several laws have been passed regarding milk consumption and had been promoted by the government and non-government organizations alike. The most extensive and well-promoted is the Milk Code or Executive Order No. 51 of 1986 which extensively focuses on rules stating that any promotion of formula products such as giving away samples in schools or other public areas and giving away prizes in contests when you purchase infant formula or creating the notion that infant formula is superior to breast milk because they don’t have added benefits that can make your child “smarter” or “more talented” is prohibited and that health centers and practitioners should be able to educate people on the risks of formula feeding and the benefits of breast milk to the infants as well. The top priority of the order is for health practitioners to promote breastfeeding (Executive Order No. 51, 1986). Although no company has been convicted of violations yet, concerned mothers who have found violations share what was wrong in a social media page along with the section in the Executive Order it had violated.

Such minute acts of multinational milk companies like these continue to thrive and take advantage of any chance they feel like promoting such products is needed even though it is not. This can lead to misinformation of consumers and in relation to the health of an infant, could endanger it (Breastfeeding, 2015). Although not stated, it is implied through these acts, a multinational company’s profits are prioritized more than the truth and health of the consumers. Revisions at present have been made to further support the Executive Order such as Administrative Order 2006-0012 and Administrative Order 2012-0027. The government also encourages people to be involved in searching for violators and lets them report directly using a government website.