milk for fitness

8/18/2019 Milk For Fitness

1/13

"Drink Milk for Fitness": The Cultural Politics of Human Biological Variation and Milk

Consumption in the United StatesAuthor(s): Andrea S. WileySource: American Anthropologist , Vol. 106, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 506-517

Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567615Accessed: 12-04-2016 11:59 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted

digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about

JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley, American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to American Anthropologist

This content downloaded from 128.239.132.96 on Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:59:05 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms


2/13

ANDREA S. WILEY

"Drink Milk for Fitness": The Cultural Politics

of Human Biological Variation and Milk

Consumption in the United States

ABSTRACT Cow's milk is accorded a high cultural value in the contemporary United States. Its white color, association with the maternal

and the pastoral, and repeated mention in the Bible add positive symbolic weight to this major national agricultural commodity. Thus, it

comes as no surprise that influential policy-making institutions in the United States recommend milk consumption for all U.S. groups. This

is despite variation in adult populations' abilities to digest milk, which has been documented by biological anthropologists. This article

assesses various U.S. "stories" about milk consumption and its relationship to biological variation against the biological anthropological

explanation of variation in lactase activity/lactose tolerance. Many of these serve as normalizing discourses that ultimately pathologize

biological difference and may undermine the dietary traditions of some ethnic groups. In particular, the close relationship between

government and the dairy industry leads to policies that fail to seriously consider variation in digestive physiology among the diverse U.S.

populations. [Keywords: milk, lactase, nutrition policy, biological variation]

T H A T P O P U L A T I O N S V A R Y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r c a

pacity to digest milk in adulthood is well known

among biological anthropologists and organizations in the

United States involved in the formulation and enactment

of food and nutrition policies. This variation in response

to milk derives from genetic regulation of lactase, the en-

zyme that breaks down the milk sugar lactose. In most pop-

ulations, lactase activity declines during childhood; in rel-

atively few does lactase activity remain high throughout

adulthood. Cross-culturally, persistence of lactase activity

into adulthood correlates with (1) fresh milk consumption;

(2) a central role for milk production in the domestic econ-

omy; (3) positive evaluation of milk and other dairy prod-

ucts; and (4) physiological capacity to digest and, hence, tol-

erate lactose. This article is primarily concerned with how

the anthropological interpretation of lactase persistence

compares to those offered by institutions in the United

States that have an impact on dietary recommendations for

consumption of cow's milk, an important agricultural com-

modity. Because polices often reflect the biases and agendas

of their authors, the portrayal of lactase persistence by the

dominant ethnic group-U.S. citizens derived from north-

ern Europe, who are largely lactase persistent-is likely to

indicate ethno- or biocentric bias, insofar as it promotes

milk consumption and downplays the significance of other

biologies.

First, I outline the state of knowledge about the bi-

ology of lactase persistence, especially its genetic founda-

tions, and what is known about population variation in

these genotypes. The anthropological discussion builds on

this genetic information and seeks to understand the evo-

lutionary causes of population variation. Next, describe the

stories told by various U.S. institutions-the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the dairy indus-

try, professional medical associations, nutritionists and di-

eticians, and antimilk coalitions. Despite widespread ac-

knowledgement that a substantial minority of people in

the United States-and the majority in the world-are lac-

tase impersistent as adults, it appears that the strong cul-

tural value placed on cow's milk and governmental sup-

port of the dairy industry inhibit policies that put the

anthropological understanding of lactase persistence into

practice. Thus, while the latter emphasizes biological vari-

ation in milk digestive physiology and the unique histor-

ical processes that produced it, this perspective has been

subsumed into subtly disguised normalizing discourses

that downplay the significance of this diversity and pro-

mote a modal biological response to milk that should

American Anthropologist, Vol. 106, Issue 3, pp. 506-517, ISSN 0002-7294, online ISSN 1548-1433. C 2004 by the American Anthropological Association.

All rights reserved. Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center Street,

Suite 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223.



3/13

Wiley * Biological Diversity and Milk Consumption in the United States 507

facilitate its consumption by all U.S. citizens throughout

life.

Given the interconnections between discourses of bi-

ological variation, dietary recommendations, and political

economic forces supporting the U.S. dairy industry, a bio-

cultural perspective is particularly relevant to this analysis.

In using the biocultural label, I consider not only how cul-

tural factors influenced biological evolution (as is surely the

case in the evolution of lactase persistence) but also how un-

derstandings of human biological variation are constructed

and elaborated within a cultural context.

THE BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATION OF LACTASE

PERSISTENCE

Lactase (more technically, lactase-phlorizin hydrolase

[LPH]) is an enzyme found in the brush border of the je-

junum of the mammalian small intestine. It functions to

break down lactose, a sugar found only in mammalian

milks, into its component sugars, glucose and galactose.

Because lactose cannot be absorbed directly, lactase is nec-

essary for the digestion and metabolic utilization of milk

sugar. In most mammalian species, lactase production is

high at birth and begins to decline around the time of

weaning. As a result, adult mammals produce only resid-

ual quantities of lactase. Up through the latter part of the

20th century, researchers debated whether lactase activity

could be maintained or induced by a diet containing lac-

tose. Although a few studies suggested that it could be, most

concluded that the decline of lactase production occurred

independently of lactose in the diet (Sahi 1994b). Human

studies from the 1960s indicated that contrary to earlier be-

liefs, most humans followed the basic mammalian pattern

(Bayless and Rosensweig 1966, 1967), and that lactase ac-

tivity in adults could not be increased by providing lactose.

It is now well understood that the age-related decline in

lactase production is regulated genetically, and that there is

both individual and population variation in this trait. While

frequencies of adult lactase activity are somewhat continu-

ously distributed across populations, two patterns are eas-

ily distinguished: (1) populations in which high frequen-

cies of adults continue to produce high levels of lactase in

adulthood and (2) populations in which lactase production

declines to low levels by adulthood (Sahi 1994a). Several

thorough reviews describe population frequencies of lac-

tase persistence (cf. Durham 1991; Flatz 1987; Sahi 1994a;

Scrimshaw and Murray 1988; Simoons 1978). While stud-

ies of individual populations vary tremendously in their

methodology and sample populations, it is clear that high

rates of lactase persistence are found only among northern

Europeans; South Asians; herding populations of the Mid-

dle East, Arabian Peninsula, and sub-Saharan Africa; and

descendents of these populations.

Populations also vary in the age at which lactase activity

declines, from one to two years to 20 years. Those groups

with high rates of persistence exhibit later average ages of

onset among members who are impersistent (Sahi 1994a).

Neither the mechanism underlying this age variation nor

its significance is well understood.

TERMINOLOGY

A number of terms are employed to describe the biologi-

cal phenomenon of lactase activity in adults, and their us-

age provides insights into how various authors or institu-

tions view variation in this phenotype. The terms lactose

tolerance/intolerance are most common in vernacular usage.

These refer to the subjective experience of gastrointestinal

symptoms after lactose consumption (bloating, diarrhea,

cramps), which vary considerably across individuals. It is

quite possible to have high lactase activity but report in-

tolerance or, more frequently, to have biologically assayed

low lactase activity but report no symptoms of intolerance.

Other terms are thus preferred, although there is no consen-

sus on which are best. In recognition that low levels of lac-

tase activity are modal for the human species, many authors

prefer lactase persistence/nonpersistence, lactase restriction, or

high/low lactose digestion capacity.

The term adult-type hypolactasia has gained currency as

a way to describe low levels of lactase activity among adults,

although Timo Sahi (1994b), a leading proponent of this

terminology, dismisses the possibility of using hyperlacta-

sia as its counterpart. However, given that hypolactasia is

the norm for the species, individuals with higher lactase ac-

tivity in adulthood could properly be described as having

hyperlactasia. Lactase deficiency implies pathology, as do the

descriptors lactose maldigestion and malabsorption. Further-

more, terminology that includes the word lactose implies

that lactose is part of the diet; lactose maldigestion or mal-

absporption would never manifest if lactose was not being

consumed.' Changes in lactase activity or the digestion of

lactose among adults can also stem from nutritional factors

(e.g., protein malnutrition), pathologies of the small intes-

tine, and gastrointestinal infections. When any of these re-

sult in low levels of lactose digestion, secondary hypolactasia,

malabsorption, or maldigestion is the diagnostic label. Adult-

type hypolactasia that derives exclusively from age-related

declines in lactase activity is considered primary.

Throughout this article I will use the terms lactase per-

sistence/impersistence. These are preferred because they are

relatively value free, implying neither pathology nor hav-

ing too much or too little or high or low lactase activity.

THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL STORY OF LACTASE

PERSISTENCE

Variation in adult lactase production appears to be under

strong genetic control, and genealogical studies have found

a pattern that is consistent with a dominant mode of ex-

pression for the alleles associated with lactase persistence

(Kretchmer 1972; Sahi 1994a). The gene for the lactase en-

zyme is found on chromosome 2 and is not variable across

populations in ways that correlate with differences in lac-

tase persistence. Regulation of the lactase gene is variable,

however, and there are four common variants of the lactase



4/13

508 American Anthropologist * Vol. 106, No. 3 * September 2004

haplotype (A, B, C, and U). A is most common in northern

Europe, with declines in frequency across southern Europe

and India, where B and C are more common. U is notably

absent among Indo-European populations but is found in

most others. Haplotype diversity is greatest in sub-Saharan

African populations (Hollox et al. 2000). Lactase persis-

tence is most frequently associated with the A form but

is found occasionally with the other forms (Harvey et al.

1998; Hollox et al. 2000).

Recently a noncoding segment of DNA upstream from

the lactase gene has been identified as a site of variation

in adult lactase activity (Enattah et al. 2002). Individuals

with the C nucleotide at a locus in the 13th intron or a

G in the 9th intron (these two introns being eight kilo-

bases apart) within a neighboring gene about 14 kilobases

upstream from the lactase gene were lactase impersistent,

while those with T or A at these same loci were lactase

persistent. Although the exact mechanism by which these

loci regulate lactase production remains unclear, current ev-

idence points to their action at the level of gene transcrip-

tion, as most studies demonstrate variation in mRNA levels

between those who are lactase persistent or impersistent, a

pattern that becomes evident during childhood (Wang et al.

1998).

It is widely accepted that the origins of animal do-

mestication set the stage for selection favoring the abil-

ity to digest lactose in adulthood-for without exposure

to mammalian milk in adulthood, presumably no advan-

tage would derive from continued production of lactase.

Indeed, all populations with high rates of lactase persis-

tence have long histories of dairying. Given that milk is rich

in several nutrients (protein, fat, calcium, sugar), Frederick

Simoons (1978, 2001) proposed that individuals with a mu-

tation allowing them to consume the milk of domesticated

mammals throughout life would have been healthier and

better nourished than those without it. Researchers have

suggested that a three to seven percent fitness advantage

would have been sufficient to generate the high frequen-

cies of lactase persistence found in dairy-dependent popu-

lations (Flatz 1987; McCracken 1971). However, as William

Durham (1991) pointed out, there are many populations

with long histories of domesticating dairy animals that also

have low rates of lactase persistence. These groups often

make use of fermented milk products (e.g., yogurt, kefir) or

cheese. Bacterial fermentation results in dairy products that

are low in lactose, while the process of cheese making in-

volves draining off the lactose-rich whey from milk solids.

Thus, having a history of dairying is necessary but not

sufficient for explaining global variation in lactase persis-

tence, and only populations drinking substantial amounts

of fresh milk would have benefited from the ability to digest

lactose.

Noting that lactase persistence and fresh milk con-

sumption correlated with latitude, Durham (1991) pro-

posed that the low levels of UV light found at high latitudes

would have selected for lactase persistence among dairying

populations living there. This hypothesis was based on the

observation by Gebhard Flatz and Hans Rotthauwe (1973)

that the presence of lactose in the small intestine enhances

calcium absorption. Vitamin D is synthesized in skin cells

in the presence of UV light and facilitates calcium uptake,

but when exposure to UV light is reduced-and Vitamin

D synthesis is, thus, likewise diminished-lactose, which is

found only in fresh milk, can increase calcium absorption.

The calcium absorption hypothesis was recently subjected

to critical review by Simoons (2001), who concluded that

there is scant osteoarchaeological, historical, or biomedi-

cal evidence to support it. Further, while this may help ex-

plain the very high frequencies of lactase persistence found

among northern Europeans, it has little relevance for un-

derstanding lactase persistence in populations at lower lat-

itudes. There, other nutritional advantages to adult milk

consumption, such as hydration or the use of lactose as a

carbohydrate, a nutrient rare in the diets of exclusive pas-

toralists, may have accrued to those able to digest fresh milk.

Another hypothesis that has received relatively little

attention is that since the genetic markers associated with

lactase persistence are known in geographically diverse ar-

eas, lactase persistence could have spread prior to the rise

of dairying cultures. B. Anderson and C. Vullo (1994) pro-

posed that lactase impersistence was selected for as a de-

fense against falciparum malaria, the most deadly form of

the parasitic disease. Milk is a very rich source of the B-

vitamin riboflavin, and malarial parasites require riboflavin

to multiply in red blood cells. In the context of riboflavin

deficiency at a level tolerated by a human host, malarial

reproduction is significantly inhibited (Dutta et al. 1985).

Thus, early reduction in lactase production would lead to

earlier termination of breastfeeding; this in turn would gen-

erate riboflavin deficiency (from decreased milk intake) suf-

ficient to reduce malarial infection without being overly

deleterious to the child. Because populations vary in the age

at which lactase activity may decline, later age of onset of

lactase impersistence would have been tolerated in popula-

tions not exposed to deadly forms of malaria (e.g., northern

Europeans, who have both high rates of lactase persistence

and later ages of onset of impersistence among those with

that genotype). However, a study in Sardinia showed that

three villages with varying exposure to malaria did have dif-

ferent frequencies of other known adaptations to malaria

(e.g., G-6PD deficiency and f-thalessemia) but did not vary

in their rates of lactase persistence (Meloni et al. 1998).

This hypothesis also fails to explain why some populations

would remain lactase persistent throughout life, given that

this is the derived (i.e., evolutionarily recent) condition for

mammals.

While selection probably played a key role in the spread

of lactase persistence among some dairying populations,

other evolutionary forces have also contributed to global

diversity in adult lactase activity. Genetic drift may have

been important in reducing diversity in genes associated

with lactase activity in non-African populations, given that

there is greater variation within contemporary African pop-

ulations (Hollox et al. 2000). Clearly, gene flow has also



5/13


played an enormous role among historical and contempo-

rary populations, especially in areas colonized by north-

ern European populations (Flatz 1987). Collectively, these

forces have generated the more-or-less continuous distribu-

tion in population frequencies of lactase persistence.

OTHER STORIES: LACTASE PERSISTENCE AND HEALTH

POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES

The anthropological story of lactase persistence is a story

of human variation: Lactase impersistence is the norm for

the species and persistence is the unusual condition. In-

dividuals in most populations experience declines in lac-

tase production during childhood and, hence, have little of

the enzyme required to fully digest milk in adulthood. As

expected, these are also populations that historically have

made little use of fresh milk. Conversely, populations with

high rates of lactase persistence have included dairy farming

as an intrinsic part of the food economy and extensive use

of dairy products in their cuisines (Durham 1991). These

practices have become entrenched in many areas perma-

nently colonized by Europeans in particular (e.g., United,

States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia). While the extent

to which fresh milk was a large part of traditional European

diets is unclear, it is now widely consumed in European-

derived populations in the United States. Milk is especially

recommended for children, teenagers, and adult women; it

is considered necessary to support the needs of fetal growth

during pregnancy and milk production during lactation,

to build and maintain a strong skeleton, and to ward off

osteoporosis at older ages. Whether these recommenda-

tions are well supported by evidence is a matter of some

contention, especially given that other populations main-

tain adequate fetal and child growth and bone density in

the absence of milk consumption (cf. Bertron et al. 1999;

Feskanich et al. 1997; Heaney 2000; Specker and Wosje

2001; Weinsier and Krumdieck 2000). While I have reviewed

this topic elsewhere (Wiley 2004), here the question is

whether the anthropological story of variation in lactase ac-

tivity has any currency in policies promoted by U.S. policy-

making institutions dealing with food, nutrition, or health,

given the hegemony of European culinary traditions and

agricultural practices. What other discourses about this as-

pect of human biological variation are constructed by such

institutions?

USDA and the National Dairy Council (NDC)

The USDA has a dual mandate within the U.S. government:

to promote U.S. agricultural interests and to issue food and

nutrition guidelines that promote the health of U.S. citi-

zens. That these two missions might be at odds with one

another was apparently not considered when the USDA

was created. At the time, undernutrition was a considerable

problem; however, in the current dietary environment of

hyperabundance of relatively cheap agricultural commodi-

ties (e.g., corn, wheat, milk) and dietary guidelines that en-

courage consumption of calorie dense foods, conflict be-

tween these goals is becoming more visible as rates of obe-

sity and its concomitant health problems continue to rise

(Nestle 2002).

Dairy products make up about 11 percent of U.S.

agricultural commodities (U.S. Department of Commerce

2002). In the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983,

the U.S. government authorized the USDA to oversee na-

tional programs for "dairy product promotion, research,

and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy

to increase human consumption of milk and dairy prod-

ucts" (USDA 2002:5). In 1990, the Fluid Milk Promotion

Act specifically targeted fluid (fresh) milk. In justifying this

act, Congress stated that

(1) fluid milk products are basic foods and a primary

source of required nutrients such as calcium, and oth-

erwise are a valuable part of the human diet; and (2) fluid

milk products must be readily available and marketed ef-

ficiently to ensure that the people of the United States

receive adequate nourishment; and (3) the dairy indus-

try plays a significant role in the economy of the United

States. [USDA 1990]

These programs are run by groups such as the Fluid Milk

Board, the National Dairy Council (NDC), and the National

Dairy Promotion and Research Board (NDPRB), among

other state and regional organizations. Under a check-off

system, local dairy farmers pay a mandatory fee per unit

of milk produced to support the activities of these groups,

the vast majority of which focus on advertising (USDA

2002).

The USDA is also responsible for developing and pro-

moting dietary guidelines for U.S. citizens. The food pyra-

mid, the most widely disseminated guide to eating in

the United States, includes a separate category for dairy

products and recommends two to three servings of dairy

products per day (www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pmap.htm).

The primary (though not exclusive) justification for such

a recommendation is based on milk products as rich

sources of calcium. Moreover, even though there are

some "alternative" nonofficial food pyramids designed for

minority populations accessible through the USDA site,

all of them also contain dairy products (www.nal.usda.

gov/fnic/etext/000023.html#xtocid2381818). As Marion

Nestle (2002) noted in her careful study of links between

government diet and nutrition policy and food industries,

several representatives of the dairy industry including the

NDC and NDPRB were on the advisory committee charged

to develop the 2000 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Not

surprisingly, they opposed any suggestion to include alter-

natives to dairy foods, especially as sources of calcium (such

as fortified soy "milk") in the dairy section.2 Among other

blatant conflations of government policy and the dairy in-

dustry was the 1998 appearance of then-secretary of health

and human services Donna Shalala in one of the popular

"got milk?" advertisements.

Thus, in both of its roles the USDA is involved in

promoting the consumption of dairy products-especially

fresh milk-among all U.S. citizens. However, the agency



6/13


has been forced to recognize that substantial numbers of

ethnic minorities may have low levels of the enzyme lac-

tase or consider themselves lactose intolerant. With the in-

creasing presence of peoples of Asian, Latin American, or

African descent in the United States, up to 25 percent of

the adult population may be lactase impersistent. The NDC

recognizes that approximately 100 percent of all Native

Americans, 90 percent of all Asian Americans, 80 percent of

all African Americans, 53 percent of all Hispanic Americans,

and 15 percent of all Caucasians are "lactose maldigesters"

(NDC 2003b).

In their publications, the USDA and the various dairy

promotion organizations first make a clear distinction be-

tween their preferred term lactose maldigestion and lactose

intolerance. Lactose intolerance refers to the "gastrointesti-

nal symptoms experienced by some individuals who have

low levels of lactase, the enzyme necessary to digest lac-

tose" (NDC 2003b). These symptoms include nausea, vom-

iting, bloating, cramps, and excess flatulence. However,

they argue that this condition is relatively rare, and that

lactose maldigestion is more common. Importantly, individ-

uals with lactose maldigestion may have low levels of lactase

but do not experience gastrointestinal symptoms following

consumption of lactose-containing dairy products so long

as their physiological capacity to digest lactose is not ex-

ceeded. Thus, according to the NDC, such people can-and

should-consume milk.

The NDC contends that rates of reported lactose

maldigestion are likely to overestimate those who actually

suffer negative symptoms after milk consumption, also in

part because these symptoms may mimic those of other

gastrointestinal illnesses. Individuals who suspect they are

lactose intolerant should be objectively tested by a physi-

cian using the breath hydrogen test, which measures the

amount of hydrogen expelled in a person's breath following

digestion of lactose. The NDC is, however, careful to note

that those tests may generate false positives (again inflating

the rate of "true" intolerance) because the lactose challenge

is much greater than that found in a glass of milk. Fur-

thermore, many individuals may claim to be lactose intol-

erant not because they have physiological symptoms but,

rather, because of negative "culturally based attitudes to-

wards milk learned at a young age" (NDC 2003b). Such

persons may never acquire a taste for milk if they live in

a family that does not make milk a part of their regular

diet.

The USDA and dairy promotion agencies recommend

"several easy steps to overcome lactose intolerance." The

first and most vital step is to see a physician immediately

in order to be correctly diagnosed. If a low level of lactase

activity is verified, an individual must not conclude that

he or she should avoid dairy products but, rather, find cre-

ative ways to include dairy products in the diet. The NDC

warns that "avoiding dairy foods can cause inadequate in-

takes of calcium and many other essential nutrients. A de-

ficiency of calcium increases the risk of developing osteo-

porosis, hypertension, and possibly some types of cancer,"

but "fortunately, tolerance to lactose can be improved by

adjusting the amounts and types of dairy foods consumed"

(NDC 2003a). These modifications include drinking small

amounts of milk with meals to slow the process of absorp-

tion, starting with small servings and slowly working up to

larger quantities in a process that suggests the building of a

tolerance to lactose. Other solutions to intolerance include

consuming aged, hard cheeses, yogurt with active bacterial

cultures, lactose-free milk, or taking over-the-counter lac-

tase enzyme tablets or drops prior to the consumption of

lactose-containing dairy products. Nondairy sources of cal-

cium are denigrated as having much less calcium than milk,

or it is suggested that their calcium is much less bioavailable

than that in milk.3

Nutrition and Dietetics Perspectives

The reach of the U.S. government's nutrition policy is exten-

sive. Its impact is clear in the nutritional recommendations

made by practicing nutritionists and dieticians, as well as in

the food assistance programs that the USDA supports. Orga-

nizations such as the American Dietetics Association (ADA),

the professional unit to which registered dietitians belong;

the American School Food Service Association (ASFSA); and

nutrition textbooks tend to take the approach of the USDA

and NDC. Given that nutritionists and dieticians are those

who provide dietary advice to individuals in clinical, public

health, food assistance program-related, and other settings,

their interpretation of lactase impersistence is likely to have

practical significance.

A popular nutrition text has a separate "nutrition fo-

cus" section on lactose intolerance in which there is dis-

cussion of population variation in the ability to digest lac-

tose, although reduction in lactase activity is described

as a "primary disease" (Wardlaw and Insel 1996). Individ-

uals suspecting lactose intolerance should find out by trial

and error how much lactose they can comfortably tolerate

and

easily adjust the amount of dairy products in their diet.

Such people need not avoid all milk and milk prod-

ucts; nor is this recommended because these foods are

very good sources of calcium, riboflavin, potassium, and

magnesium. Although these four nutrients are present in

other food groups, many people don't eat much of these

alternative sources. [Wardlaw and Insel 1996:75-76]

The ADA presents a "fact sheet" on lactose intoler-

ance, which was supported by a grant from McNeil Con-

sumer Products, makers of Lactaid?. The fact sheet re-

views population variation in lactase production-and, in

an interesting departure from NDC statements-suggests

that lactose intolerance is very common. It does, though,

go on to recommend that individuals adopt the various

strategies outlined by the NDC-for example, consuming

smaller amounts of dairy more frequently or choosing lower

lactose-containing dairy products, but, not surprisingly, two

of its six suggestions include taking exogenous lactase.

Nestle (2002) has noted that among professional nutrition



7/13


associations, the ADA is more likely to promote food indus-

try interests in its publications, and it is one of the links

(the other being the NDC) listed at www.whymilk.com,

the interactive website of the popular "got milk?"

campaign.

The ASFSA, a nonprofit organization of professionals in

school nutrition programs, also vigorously promotes milk

consumption in part through its close association with the

National School Lunch Program. Since the 1946 inception

of the National School Lunch Act, the government has re-

quired that fluid milk be offered as part of meals that are

eligible for federal reimbursement. Note that the National

School Lunch program, like the USDA, has a dual purpose,

as outlined in the Act of 1946:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, as

a measure of national security, to safeguard the health

and well-being of the Nation's children and to encour-

age the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural

commodities and other food, by assisting the States,

through grants-in aid and other means, in providing an

adequate supply of food and other facilities for the es-

tablishment, maintenance, operation and expansion of

nonprofit school lunch programs. [USDA 2003]

Twenty years later, private institutions devoted to the care

and education of children were also made eligible for these

federal milk reimbursements. And, in 1968, an amendment

to the Child Nutrition Act was approved that read: "Min-

imum nutritional requirements shall not be construed to

prohibit substitution of foods to accommodate the medi-

cal or other special dietary needs of individual students"

(USDA 2003). Presumably, this covered those with lac-

tose intolerance. Of note is a presentation from the ASFSA

website that celebrates Boston schools' success at promot-

ing lactose-free milk in their food programs, which re-

sulted in increases in milk sales (Focus on Children: Boston

Public Schools 2003); also educational materials from the

NDC are easily accessed though the ASFSA site (www.asfsa.

org .4

The Special Supplemental Nutritional Assistance

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) was au-

thorized in 1974 to provide subsidies for specific nutrient-

rich foods for pregnant or breastfeeding women and in-

fants and children up to five years of age. Fluid milk

and cheese are featured among the foods that are al-

lowed (others are infant formula, cereal, eggs, dried

beans, peanut butter, tuna fish, and carrots). The major-

ity (over 60 percent) of WIC recipients (which numbered

over eight million in 2002) are minorities--the largest

percentage of which are Hispanics, African Americans,

Asian Americans, and Native Americans, all populations

with high frequencies of lactase impersistence (www.ers.

usda.gov/publications/fanrr27/fanrr27d.pdf). In recogni-

tion of individuals with "special" dietary needs, WIC allows

lactose-reduced or lactose-free milk, or the substitution of

more cheese for milk in its food packages, but no nondairy

substitutes.

Professional Medical Associations

Given that government nutrition policy explicitly targets

milk for consumption by U.S. citizens to maintain optimal

health, how do medical institutions, whose members are

involved in clinical practice, assess the issue of milk con-

sumption and lactase impersistence? Publicly available ma-

terials from three relevant medical organizations (American

Academy of Pediatrics [AAP]; American Academy of Fam-

ily Practitioners [AAFP]; and American College of Gastroen-

terology [ACG]) provide insight into this issue. These groups

all make the crucial distinction between lactose intolerance

and lactase impersistence but tend to focus on lactose intoler-

ance. This makes sense in that from their perspective, lactose

intolerance is the relevant clinical condition; individuals

experiencing uncomfortable or painful symptoms because

of underlying lactase impersistence would be those most

likely seek medical help.

While medical organizations appear to consider lactase

impersistence as "normal" for the human species, citing the

usual surveys of its frequency in different populations, their

language nonetheless tends to medicalize it and treat it as

the deviant condition. For example, the AAP uses the lan-

guage lactose maldigestion, but in the discussion of global

variation, it refers to lactase deficiency:

late-onset lactase deficiency (adult hypolactasia) is a com-

mon disorder. Approximately 90% of adult American

blacks and 60% to 80% of Mexican-Americans, native

American Indians, Asians, and most middle-Eastern and

Mediterranean populations have abnormal findings on

lactose tolerance tests. [AAP 1985, emphasis added]5

Likewise, lactase impersistence is described by the ACG

as: "a shortage of the enzyme lactase, which is nor-

mally produced by the cells that line the small intes-

tine" (www.acg.gi.org/patientinfo/cgp/cgpvol3.html#food,

emphasis added). Note that these are descriptions of lactase

impersistence, not specifically the clinical symptoms asso-

ciated with lactose intolerance.

Unlike the NDC, which recommends an objective

lactose-challenge test by a clinician, medical organizations

tend to favor self-diagnosis of lactose intolerance. In their

educational materials, both the AAFP and ACG recommend

that individuals diagnose themselves by eliminating all

dairy products from their diet for several weeks to ascer-

tain whether this eases their symptoms. This is followed

by a dairy challenge to see if symptoms reappear. If they

do, the "treatment" is simple: Avoid dairy products. How-

ever, they also suggest that by trial and error individuals

should figure out how much of which dairy products they

can tolerate without negative symptoms. Those who find

themselves reacting to most dairy products are advised to

take exogenous lactase before they consume them.

Again, the concern for those who avoid milk products

is that they would not meet their calcium needs. Most medi-

cal organizations recommend dairy products such as yogurt,

cheese, or lactose-reduced milk, especially for children, who

are seen as particularly in need of not only the calcium in



8/13


dairy products but also the protein, Vitamin D (which is

not an intrinsic part of milk; milk is fortified with Vitamins

A and D), and, in the case of fresh milk, water for hydra-

tion. Other fortified foods, such as orange juice, or dark

green leafy vegetables, legumes, and fish are recommended,

and calcium supplementation is advised for those who

"significantly limit their dietary intake of milk products"

(www.acg.gi.org/patientinfo/cgp/pdf/food_I% 7E 1.pdf).

While the AAP expresses concern that children with

lactase impersistence obtain sufficient calcium, their state-

ment also outlines the potential problems associated with

milk consumption among such children. The nutrients in

milk may not be fully absorbed; if diarrhea results, nutri-

ents are lost and there is a risk of dehydration. Furthermore,

the AAP and others express concern about the use of lac-

tose in medicines such as birth control pills, antacids, and

other prescription and over-the-counter drugs (AAP 1985).

Lactose is used as a filler, an anticaking agent, and a flavor

to make pills more palatable. While only a very few in-

dividuals with severe intolerance are likely to be sensitive

to these small amounts, including lactose among the inac-

tive ingredients in medicines (estimated at up to 20 percent

of prescription drugs and six percent of over-the-counter

medicines; www.gastro.org/public/brochures/lactose.html)

indicates a lack of appreciation for population diversity in

physiological responses to lactose.

Antimilk Groups

Despite overt sponsorship of milk consumption by state

and federal governments, there is vigorous-if not well-

coordinated-antimilk sentiment, suggesting that milk's

merits are not entirely uncontested within the United

States. Two primers for this "movement" with intention-

ally sensationalist titles are Milk: The Deadly Poison by Robert

Cohen (1997), the self-proclaimed "notmilkman" who also

maintains a website www.notmilk.com, and Dont Drink

Your Milk The Frightening New Medical Facts about the World's

Most Overrated Nutrient by Frank Oski (1977). The Physi-

cian's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are two

organizations actively promoting the message that milk is

neither an ideal nor necessary food.6 Both groups cite stud-

ies implicating milk consumption as a contributing factor to

numerous health problems (from prostate and breast cancer

to osteoporosis; see www.pcrm.org or www.milksucks.com).

Lactose intolerance is on the list of potential problems as-

sociated with milk consumption; as with clinicians, antim-

ilk groups are more concerned with negative physiological

outcomes and less interested in lactase impersistence per se.

The latter is folded into lactose intolerance in this description:

LACTOSE INTOLERANCE: Fifty million Americans experi-

ence intestinal discomfort after consuming milk, cheese,

or ice cream (Postgraduate Medicine 1994:95). Symptoms

include stomach pain, gas, and diarrhea.

Lactose, a milk sugar, is made up of two other sugars,

glucose and galactose. Galactose has been identified as a

causative factor in heart disease, cataracts, and glaucoma.

Most adults "lack" the enzyme, lactase, to break down

lactose. Instead, lactose is broken down by bacteria in the

lower intestines. Their own body wastes combine with

those sugars to ferment into toxins causing bloating and

cramps.

Once a correct diagnosis is established, there is a simple

cure: NOTMILK

In April of 1999, the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

(volume 28:3) reported: "Introduction of a lactose-free

dietary regime relieves symptoms in most patients... who

remain largely unaware of the relationship between food

intake and symptoms." [Cohen 1998]

Unlike the dairy industry, which claims that the preva-

lence of lactose intolerance is overestimated, Cohen suggests

that it is underdiagnosed as a source of gastrointestinal com-

plaints. And, instead of following the "simple steps" that

the dairy industry outlines for individuals with symptoms

of intolerance, the solution is straightforward: Avoid dairy

products. Because the antimilk contingent considers there

to be sufficient evidence that milk may cause rather than

prevent various health problems, this avoidance is not dele-

terious but, in fact, beneficial to one's health.

A related resource, accessible from www.nomilk.com,

is the website of Steve Carper, author of Milk: Not for Every

Body (1995; the site can also be accessed at http://ourworld.

compuserve.com/homepages/stevecarper/). On Carper's

"lactose planet," the lactose intolerance clearinghouse has

an extensive array of information, much of which reads

like the discussion in an introductory biological anthropol-

ogy textbook. Again a clear distinction is made between

lactose intolerance and lactase impersistence, and the evolu-

tionary explanation for lactase persistence is presented (i.e.,

pastoralist or Vitamin D-deficient populations gained some

advantage by drinking milk). Carper is not opposed to milk

consumption per se but wants to alert the public about the

myriad potential problems associated with milk consump-

tion and provide information on alternatives.

The clash between the antimilk platform of the PCRM

and the promilk agenda of USDA and NDC came to a head

in two articles in the Journal of the National Medical Associa-

tion, a journal devoted to health issues that concern peoples

of African descent (www.nmanet.org). At the heart of the

debate was the policy significance of biological variation in

adult lactase production. Authors from the PCRM alleged

that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans are biased against

minorities insofar as dairy products are recommended for

all U.S. citizens (Bertron et al. 1999). They concluded that

the Guidelines

encourage dairy products for daily consumption by all

Americans, despite differences in tolerances for dairy

products, preferences for other calcium-rich foods and

susceptibilities to osteoporosis, as well as the lack of sci-

entific evidence of benefit from dairy products for mem-

bers of racial minorities. In this regard, federal nutrition



9/13


policies do not yet address the needs of all Americans.

[Bertron et al. 1999:156]

In this case, recognition of significant population variation

in lactase persistence and relatively high frequencies of im-

persistence among minorities in the U.S. warrants rethink-

ing the explicit national policy of encouraging-indeed,

mandating-dairy product consumption by all. Those with

different digestive biologies are being forced to conform to

European-derived norms of dietary behavior, which the au-

thors contend are associated with increased risk for various

diseases such as osteoporosis and ovarian cancer, among

others. This charge echoed a 1979 lawsuit in which the

Federal Trade Commission sued the California Milk Produc-

ers Advisory Board for its advertising campaign "Everybody

needs milk." However, the judge ruled that there was insuf-

ficient evidence that milk was a significant threat to indi-

viduals with lactose intolerance, arguing further that

Milk is one of the most nutritious foods in the nation's

diet, and from the standpoint of the population as a

whole, or even significant population groups, is literally

"essential, necessary and needed." The withdrawl of milk

from any major population group would amount to a

nutritional disaster. [Katz 1981:267]

A response to PCRM appeared in the same journal three

years later in an article titled "Overcoming the Barrier of

Lactose Intolerance to Reduce Health Disparities," authored

by NDC researchers (Jarvis and Miller 2002). In this coun-

terclaim, the authors argued that the relatively high rates of

lactose maldigestion and the concomitant low milk intake

among minority populations are significant contributors to

their higher rates of several chronic diseases (osteoporosis,

hypertension, stroke, colon cancer). The basis of the claim

is evidence suggesting that calcium and "other dairy related

nutrients" may reduce the risk of these diseases, although

at present most studies presenting such results have relied

on correlations and retrospective data, rather than demon-

strating a direct causal link between milk consumption and

lower risk of these diseases. Thus, to reduce disparities be-

tween the relative health advantages enjoyed by whites,

"Physicians can help reduce the disease burden and health

care costs in minority populations by committing them-

selves to helping their clients overcome the barrier of lactose

intolerance" (Jarvis and Miller 2002:64). This is to be ac-

complished by providing such clients with "several simple

strategies that allow those with low lactase activity to con-

sume dairy products," as outlined previously. Furthermore,

in a separate publication, the NDC argues that although

"Many minorities have low levels of lactase ... stereotyping

all minorities as lactose intolerant is inappropriate" (NDC

2003b). Thus, the claim of bias against minorities evident

in recommendations to consume milk is turned on its head

to suggest that individuals who fail to consume milk be-

cause of fears of symptoms (often misplaced, the NDC re-

searchers claim) from lactose maldigestion are at risk of ma-

jor chronic diseases and well-known health deficits because

of their dietary choices, as well as to accuse the authors

from the PCRM of racial stereotyping. The NDC materials

explicitly confirm that the Dietary Guidelines are for all U.S.

citizens, that dairy foods are required to provide nutrients

not found in other types of foods, and that minorities are

especially at risk of calcium-deficiency diseases as a function

of lower dairy consumption (NDC 2003b).

DISCUSSION

At the heart of these various stories about lactase persis-

tence/impersistence are two key issues. One is the nature

and significance of biological diversity in lactase produc-

tion in adulthood and its relationship to milk consump-

tion. The second, and related, issue is the appropriateness

of milk in the diet of contemporary U.S. citizens, which

should be reflected in food and nutrition policies. All of

the stories contain some appreciation for biological diver-

sity of adult lactase production. They acknowledge that lac-

tase impersistence is very common in the world and that

there are substantial minorities within the U.S. who are lac-

tase impersistent. Some go further in describing the evo-

lutionary scenarios that might have generated differences

in lactase activity, focusing on the nutritional benefits that

might have accrued to populations that were able to exploit

fresh milk. Thus, the older advertising slogan "Drink Milk

for Fitness" had an unintentional (?) link to evolutionary

explanations, but, of course, it went further by making this

a blanket statement that suggested that everyone's physi-

cal and, perhaps, Darwinian fitness might be enhanced by

milk consumption. While it makes sense that the dairy in-

dustry would want to endorse this concept, with the ex-

ception of the antimilk contingents, milk continues to be

recommended by diverse institutions, albeit in forms and

quantities that individuals find physiologically acceptable.

This suggests the entrenched nature of milk in U.S. culi-

nary culture, national identity, and agricultural economy.

As Melanie DuPuis (2002) has shown, even in the 19th cen-

tury when milk consumption was more often than not as-

sociated with infectious disease from the unsanitary con-

ditions of its production and distribution, it had already

achieved the status of "nature's perfect food." Milk's posi-

tive symbolism is overdetermined: its white color, associa-

tion with things pastoral and maternal and the innocence

of babies, and its biblical references (several being odes to a

"land that floweth with milk and honey"), among others.

In the 20th century, with improvements in sanitation (pas-

teurization, refrigeration) and discoveries in nutrition, one

nutrient in particular-calcium-has come to symbolize the

inherent goodness of milk. The current justification for pro-

moting milk rests almost exclusively on this mineral, and

the United States, it is proclaimed, is facing a "calcium cri-

sis" (NDC 2003b). This crisis-whether real or imagined-

correlates with a decline in milk consumption and evidence

that most U.S. citizens, milk drinkers included, consume

less than the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for cal-

cium (the average is 801 milligrams, while the RDA is at

least 1,000 milligrams; USDA 1998).7 Whether the RDA for



10/13


calcium is too high or too low is a matter of some contention

(Anderson 2001; Matkovic and Ilich 1993), but suffice it to

say here that the solution to the calcium "crisis," at least

according to the USDA and NDC, is to consume more milk

rather than consume other foods rich in calcium-such as

fish bones, dark green leafy vegetables, nuts, or legumes.

The USDA notes that milk and dairy products make up 73

percent of the calcium available in the U.S. food supply and,

hence, dairy is the best and most readily available source

of calcium (NDC 2003b). It should be noted that hunter-

gatherers living on wild foods are able to consume ample

quantities of calcium (above the U.S. RDA) from nondairy

sources (Eaton et al. 1999). On the other hand, it appears

that much of the world's population consumes well below

the U.S. RDA for calcium without apparent detriment (Food

and Agriculture Organization 2002).

By and large, aside from the allegations of the antimilk

groups, the NDC and the USDA constitute the main voice

in shaping the dominant rhetoric about biological diver-

sity in lactase production. Their story is constructed around

the inherent goodness of milk and the benefits of a biolog-

ical make-up that allows for daily consumption of abun-

dant quantities. As DuPuis noted, the apparent superiority

achieved by European dairying cultures during the colonial

period was in part attributed to their dairy-based diet. She

quotes the famous nutritionist E. V. McCollum in National

Dairy Council advertisements from the 1920s:

The people who have achieved, who have become large,

strong, vigorous people, who have reduced their infant

mortality, who have the best trades in the world, who

have an appreciation for art, literature and music, who

are progressive in science and every activity of the human

intellect are the people who have used liberal amounts of

milk and its products. [DuPuis 2002:117]

Not only was drinking milk and consuming other dairy

products seen as superior, it was also viewed as normal

and normative. This perspective endured through the 1960s

when studies began to demonstrate population variation in

lactase persistence, with the modal global form being lactase

impersistence. However, despite widespread recognition of

this distribution, lactase impersistence remains implicitly

pathological, as evidenced in widely used terminologies

and definitions. Such medicalizing of non-Western, partic-

ularly African biologies appears in the colonial period and

remains evident in the example of lactase impersistence (cf.

Comaroff and Comaroff 1992; Gould 1981; see Tapper 1995

for discussion of the analogous example of sickle-cell ane-

mia). To be fair, lactose intolerance, which may result from

lactase impersistence, is a cluster of uncomfortable physi-

ological symptoms for which a person might seek medical

help, but it is important to acknowledge that these only

manifest in the context of milk consumption.

The significance of biological variation in lactase per-

sistence is downplayed by the USDA and dairy industry.

First, they consider it to be an "overblown" issue, citing ev-

idence that lactase impersistence is not always associated

with symptoms of lactose intolerance. Although they ac-

knowledge that a large portion of adults-particularly in mi-

nority populations in the United States-are likely to have

low levels of lactase, this should not prevent them from

consuming milk. Much research sponsored by the NDC has

been focused on determining just how much milk people

who self- or medically diagnose lactose maldigestion can

consume; their published studies show that up to two or

even three cups of milk can be consumed by individuals

testing positive for lactose maldigestion, as long as these are

spread throughout the day (Suarez et al. 1997, 1998). An-

thropological studies have also noted discordance between

lactase status and symptoms of intolerance. For example,

Susan Cheer and John Allen (1997) found that Tokelau

islanders in New Zealand had high frequencies of lactase

impersistence, as diagnosed in breath hydrogen tests, but

lactase status was not highly correlated with either con-

sumption of dairy products or perceived symptoms of lac-

tose intolerance.

From the USDA and NDC's perspective, avoidance of

milk is not an acceptable strategy, regardless of one's lac-

tase status. To consume milk in the United States is to be

healthy; to avoid milk is to put oneself at risk of a variety of

long-term ailments. Thus, diversity in adult lactase produc-

tion is essentially meaningless for most individuals who,

they suggest, can happily consume milk and be healthier

for it. At the same time, the NDC retains a vision of lactase

impersistence as problematic, not so much because it may

provoke gastrointestinal symptoms but, rather, because it

may result in reduced milk consumption. The very term

maldigestion suggests a malady, and the following passage

describes the deviant nature of this condition: "Data from

most studies suggest that individuals with primary lactose

deficiency consume less milk than those who digest milk

normally" (Jarvis and Miller 2002:58, emphasis added). So

while they acknowledge underlying biological variation, it

is of no practical significance; it should not be a barrier to

consuming milk and enjoying the health benefits it confers

to those who have a history of drinking milk and continue

to do so regularly. One can and should "overcome" this bi-

ological deficit to achieve full participation in U.S. culinary

culture and its self-evident salutary consequences.

Because biological variation is discounted, the NDC

suggests that it is negative cultural attitudes about milk that

reduce its consumption by minority groups. Arthur Whaley

noted this same trend in epidemiological studies: "Eth-

nic/racial groups are often seen as having misperceptions

and unhealthy behaviors learned through cultural social-

ization that increase their risk for adverse health outcomes"

(2003:738). Hence, individuals in such groups should be

educated about the value of milk in their diets and en-

act behavioral changes; the source, value, or integrity of

diverse "cultural attitudes" are dismissed. Drinking milk

is no less than full enculturation into U.S. life. Yet the

increasing diversity of the U.S. public must be acknowl-

edged and celebrated to some extent, especially if the goal

is to sell more milk and reverse the decades-old downward

trend in milk consumption. Thus, efforts to embrace that



11/13


diversity while simultaneously unifying it into a common

milk-drinking experience have escalated.8 It is impossible

to avoid the images in popular culture from the wildly

successful "got milk?" advertising campaign, which fea-

ture famous role models of various ethnic backgrounds

sporting milk mustaches.9 This campaign has both in-

creased milk sales and reached iconic status. This prac-

tice is not lost on antimilk groups, who complain that it

is misleading because of the relatively high frequency of

lactase impersistence/lactose intolerance among groups of

African, Asian, or Latin American descent (and who have

also subverted the "got milk?" slogan in various ways; see

www.milksucks.com). Given the rapid growth of this de-

mographic group, the NDC explicitly targets Hispanics in

its current advertising strategy (USDA 2002); by using mi-

nority role models, it hopes to instill a positive association

with milk and encourage milk consumption among minor-

ity children. Given that food preferences are established in

childhood (Rozin 1983, 1990), this strategy should pay off

for the dairy industry in the short and long term.

So how do we construct reasonable food policy based

on our current understanding of population variation in

adult lactase production? Both the NDC and PCRM have

valid claims-that to characterize minorities as lactase im-

persistent (or lactose intolerant) is to engage in racial stereo-

typing and that to mandate milk consumption for all U.S.

citizens is discriminatory against those with lactase imper-

sistence (and especially those with lactose intolerance). To

some extent the claims and counterclaims about the health-

iness of milk are irrelevant to this discussion, although it is

a travesty to attribute health deficits among minorities to

their "failure" to drink milk. Milk is neither the elixir of life,

whose consumption will surely prevent chronic disease, nor

is biology destiny-drinking moderate amounts of milk is

not likely to be seriously problematic for most people with

lactase impersistence. Various lactose-reduced options ex-

ist for those who wish to consume dairy, but at the same

time, an increasingly diverse U.S. public is being led to be-

lieve that they must consume milk to be healthy, and tradi-

tional cuisines and alternate sources of calcium are largely

discredited.

CONCLUSION

It is heartening to see widespread acknowledgment of hu-

man biological variation in adult lactase activity among

policy-making institutions in the United States. The evo-

lutionary stories that go along with it have received less

attention, except insofar as they acknowledge that some

benefit accrued to certain populations that were able to ex-

ploit milk throughout life. These benefits are hailed and em-

phasized by those institutions promoting milk; they are less

evident in the stories told by those who question milk's cul-

tural and biological supremacy. The biology that facilitates

ongoing milk consumption is likewise celebrated; other di-

gestive physiologies are seen as abnormal or deficient in

some way and need to be "overcome."

However, in achieving such broad acceptance, the

anthropological context for appreciating biological and

cultural diversity is easily lost, especially when it threatens

to thwart marketing goals or undermine accepted wisdom,

in this case, about the inherent goodness of milk for "every

body." When it comes to describing biological variation,

the axiom that biological variation within populations is

greater than variation between populations is rarely appre-

ciated, as populations are labeled as lactose intolerant or lac-

tase persistent. Yet in the quest for examples of patterned ge-

netic variation among human populations, work in biologi-

cal anthropology may promote this interpretation, reifying

population differences while downplaying the tremendous

amount of individual variation in response to lactose. This

is where the evolutionary perspective is most useful, in the

sense that it describes the process by which genetic change

comes about and the important social and natural environ-

mental factors that generate such change without reference

to discrete population groupings.

This example further illustrates the utility of a biocul-

tural perspective in anthropology, and one that attempts to

understand how human biology, especially human biologi-

cal variation, is constructed and elaborated within a cultural

context. Here, biological variation in lactase production in

adulthood runs up against a dietary culture characterized

by extensive use of dairy products and a political economic

context in which the USDA and dairy industry ally to in-

crease milk consumption among a U.S. public of increas-

ing biological, ethnic, and dietary diversity. The story that

they tell about lactase persistence has become the domi-

nant story; challenges to it are trivialized or described as

subversive. This axis of biological variation, so celebrated

by biological anthropologists, is relegated to a somewhat

interesting yet, ultimately, meaningless fact, except insofar

as it threatens to impede full enculturation into a dairy-

consuming culture.

ANDREA S. WILEY Program in Anthropology, James

Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807

NOTES

Acknowledgments. I gratefully acknowledge the help of a group of

excellent anthropology students atJames Madison University, most

especially Adam Southall, for his careful research and comments

on this manuscript. Likewise, Angel Shockley, Naheed Ahmed,

Haley Thrift, and Jessica Fowler contributed useful insights. Kim

Butler's thesis work on milk advertising was particularly helpful.

Ric Thompson, Alex Brewis, and Richard Lippke all provided valu-

able feedback on earlier drafts of this article. The editors of AA were

very helpful in recasting the article for the broadest anthropological

audience.

1. A lack of consistency in terminology is evident in introductory

biological anthropology textbooks. In a sample of four textbooks,

two referred to lactase impersistence simply as lactose intolerance

(Jurmain et al. 2000; Relethford 2003); one referred to it as lac-

tase deficiency (Stein and Rowe 2000); and another referred to it as

low digestive capacity (Boyd and Silk 2003).

2. In a preliminary proposal for new revised Dietary Guidelines,

calcium-enriched soy products are added as an alternative

in the dairy category (see www.usda.gov/cnpp/pyramid-

update/FGP%20docs/TABLE%201.pdf). It remains to be seen



12/13


whether this will be kept in the final version, although Dean

Foods, one of the largest dairy corporations, also owns Morningstar,

which makes Sun Soy, a soymilk brand.

3. Robert Heaney and Connie Weaver (1990) found that the

calcium available in kale was higher than that in milk. Other

sources disparage the calcium density and bioavailability of veg-

etable foods: "A person would need to consume 8 cups of spinach,

nearly 5 cups of red beans, or 2 cups of broccoli to get the same

amount of calcium absorbed from 1 cup of milk" (NDC 2003b).

4. It should also be noted that many schools have "pouring rights"

contracts with soft drink corporations, and students often choose

soft drinks over milk at school. Given the high sugar content of soda

and its potential contribution to the current epidemic of childhood

obesity, this issue is a key concern of ASFSA members.

5. These population groupings are regularly used in descriptions

of variation in lactase activity in the United States. That these are

diverse kinds of groups, which reflect commonly used national,

regional, "racial," or ethnic identities is not considered.

6. These groups have been described as "the most immediately

dangerous," because of their sometimes terrorist tactics (Heaney

2001:160). Further, their influence is decried:

We confront a recent, very modern efflorescence of mil-

itant groups that oppose all use of animal products and

aim to effect a nutritional policy outcome similar to that

of the creationists with regard to evolution. Those who

care about nutrition, those who think nutrition impor-

tant for the public health general, need to realize that

the present-day skirmishes may be only the first wave of

a growing battle. [Heaney 2001:163]

7. This decline in milk consumption is usually traced to the rise in

the consumption of soda, bottled water, juice, and sports drinks.

Also, while U.S. citizens widely acknowledge that milk "does a body

good," this earlier advertising slogan had little positive impact on

milk consumption. Only after the initiation of the "got milk?" cam-

paign did milk consumption rebound somewhat (Manning 1999).

8. Promilk attitudes and governmental policies are increasingly

evident on a global scale. Thus, immigrants to the United States

may already come with attitudes shaped by these policies from

their home countries.

9. Recently, some have started wearing lactose-reduced milk

mustaches.

REFERENCES CITED

American Academy of Pediatrics

1985 "Inactive" Ingredients in Pharmaceutical Products. Pedi-

atrics 76(4):635-643.

Anderson, B., and C. Vullo

1994 Did Malaria Select for Primary Adult Lactase Deficiency?

Gut 35:1487-1489.

Anderson, John J. B.

2001 Calcium Requirements during Adolescence to Maximize

Bone Health. Journal of the American College of Nutrition

20(2):186S-191S.

Bayless, Theodore M., and N. S. Rosensweig

1966 A Racial Difference in Incidence of Lactase Deficiency: A

Survey of Milk Intolerance and Lactase Deficiency in Healthy

Adult Males. Journal of the American Medical Association

197:968 972.

1967 Incidence and Implications of Lactase Deficiency and Milk

Intolerance in White and Negro Populations. Johns Hopkins

Medical Journal 121:54-64.

Bertron, Patricia, Neal D. Barnard, and Milton Mills

1999 Racial Bias in Federal Nutrition Policy, part 1: The Public

Health Implications of Variations in Lactase Persistence. Jour-

nal of the National Medical Association 91(3):151-157.

Boyd, Robert, and Joan B. Silk

2003 How Humans Evolved. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.

Carper, Steve

1995 Milk Is Not for Every Body: Living with Lactose Intoler-

ance. New York: Facts on File.

Cheer, Susan M., and John S. Allen

1997 Lactose Digestion Capacity and Perceived Symptomatic

Response after Dairy Product Consumption in Tokelau Is-

land Migrants. American Journal of Human Biology 9(2):233-

246.

Cohen, Robert

1997 Milk: The Deadly Poison. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Argus

Publishing.

1998 Lactose Intolerance. Electronic document, www.notmilk.

com/forum/988.html, accessed October 2, 2003.

Comaroff, John, and Jean Comaroff

1992 Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder:

Westview Press.

DuPuis, E. Melanie

2002 Nature's Perfect Food: How Milk Became America's Drink.

New York: New York University Press.

Durham, William

1991 Coevolution: Genes, Culture and Human Diversity.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Dutta, P., J. Pinto, and R. Rivlin

1985 Antimalarial Effects of Riboflavin Deficiency. Lancet

2(8463):1040-1043.

Eaton, S. Boyd, S. B. Eaton III, and Melvin J. Konner

1999 Paleolithic Nutrition Revisited. In Evolutionary Medicine.

W. R. Trevathan, E. O. Smith, and J. J. McKenna, eds. Pp. 313-

332. New York: Oxford University Press.

Enattah, Nabil Sabri, Timo Sahi, Erkki Savilahti, Joseph D.

Terwilliger, Leena Peltonen, and Irma Varvela

2002 Identification of a Variant Associated with Adult-Type

Hypolactasia. Nature Genetics 30:233-237.

Feskanich, Diane, Walter C. Willett, Meir J. Stampfer, and Graham

A. Colditz

1997 Milk, Dietary Calcium, and Bone Fractures in Women: A

12-Year Prospective Study. American Journal of Public Health

87:992 997.

Flatz, Gebhard

1987 Genetics of Lactose Digestion in Humans. Advances in Hu-

man Genetics 16:1-77.

Flatz, Gebhard, and Hans W. Rotthauwe

1973 Lactose Nutrition and Natural Selection. Lancet 2:76-77.

Focus on Children: Boston Public Schools

2003 Marketing-Best Practice. Boston Public Schools Lactose-

Free Milk Public Awareness and Education Campaign. Elec-

tronic document, www.asfsa.org/meetingsandevents/archive/

mc2003/marketing_boston.ppt, accessed October 2.

Food and Agriculture Organization

2002 Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements. Rome: Food

and Nutrition Division, FAO.

Gould, Stephen Jay

1981 The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.

Harvey, C. B., Edward J. Hollox, Mark Poulter, Yangxi Wang,

M. Rossi, S. Auricchio, T. H. Iqbal, B. T. Cooper, R. Barton, M.

Sarner, R. Korpela, and Dallas M. Swallow

1998 Lactase Haplotype Frequencies in Caucasians: Association

with the Lactase Persistence/Nonpersistence Polymorphism.

Annals of Human Genetics 62:215-223.

Heaney, Robert P.

2000 Calcium, Dairy Products and Osteoporosis. Journal of the

American College of Nutrition 19(2):83S-99S.

2001 The Dairy Controversy: Facts, Questions, and Polemics. In

Nutritional Aspects of Osteoporosis. P. Burckhardt, B. Dawson-

Hughes, and R. P. Heaney, eds. Pp. 155-164. New York:

Academic Press.

Heaney, Robert P., and Connie M. Weaver

1990 Calcium Absorption from Kale. American Journal of Clin-

ical Nutrition 51:656-657.

Hollox, Edward J., Mark Poulter, Marek Zvarik, Vladimir Ferak,

Amanda Krause, Trefor Jenkins, Nilmani Saha, Andrew I.

Kozlov, and Dallas M. Swallow

2000 Lactase Haploytpe Diversity in the Old World. American

Journal of Human Genetics 68:160-172.

Jarvis, Judith K., and Gregory D. Miller

2002 Overcoming the Barrier of Lactose Intolerance to Reduce

Health Disparities. Journal of the National Medical Association

94(2):55-66.



13/13


Jurmain, Robert, Harry Nelson, Lynn Kilgore, and Wenda Trevathan

2000 Introduction to Physical Anthropology. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Katz, Robert S.

1981 Dairy Council Perspective on Lactose Intolerance. In Lac-

tose Digestion: Clinical and Nutritional Implications. David

M. Paige and Theodore M. Bayless, eds. P. 267. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kretchmer, Norman

1972 Lactose and Lactase. Scientific American 227(4):70-78.

Manning, Jeff

1999 Got Milk? The Book. Rocklin, CA: Prima.

Matkovic, Velimir, and Jazminka Z. Ilich

1993 Calcium Requirements for Growth: Are Current Recom-

mendations Adequate? Nutrition Reviews 51(6):171-180.

McCracken, Robert D.

1971 Lactase Deficiency: An Example of Dietary Evolution. Cur-

rent Anthropology 12:479-517.

Meloni, T., C. Colombo, G. Ruggiu, M. Denena, and G. F. Meloni

1998 Primary Lactase Deficiency and Past Malarial Endemic-

ity in Sardinia. Italian Journal of Gastroenterology and

Hepatology 30:490-493.

National Dairy Council

2003a Dairy Food Sensitivities: Facts and Fallacies. Elec-

tronic document, www.nationaldairycouncil.org/lvl04/

nutrilib/digest/dairydigest_683b.htm, accessed May 30.

2003b Lactose Intolerance and Minorities: The Real Story.

Electronic document, www.nationaldairycouncil.org/lv104/

nutrilib/relresearch/lactoseintl.html, accessed August 7.

Nestle, Marion

2002 Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition

and Health. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Oski, Frank A.

1977 Don't Drink Your Milk The Frightening New Medical Facts

about the World's Most Overrated Nutrient. Chicago: Wyden

Books.

Relethford, John H.

2003 The Human Species. New York: McGraw Hill.

Rozin, Paul

1983 Human Food Selection: The Interaction of Biology, Culture

and Individual Experience. In The Psychobiology of Human

Food Selection. L. M. Barker, ed. Pp. 225-254. Westport, CT:

AVI Publishing Co.

1990 Acquisition of Stable Food Preferences. Nutrition Reviews

48:106 113.

Sahi, Timo

1994a Genetics and Epidemiology of Adult-Type Hypolactasia.

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 29(suppl. 202):7-20.

1994b Hypolactasia and Lactase Persistence: Historical Review

and the Terminology. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterol-

ogy 29(suppl. 202):1-6.

Scrimshaw, Nevin S., and E. B. Murray

1988 The Acceptability of Milk and Milk Products in Populations

with a High Prevalence of Lactose Tolerance. American Journal

of Clinical Nutrition 48(4):1083-1159.

Simoons, Frederick J.

1978 The Geographic Hypothesis and Lactose Malabsorption.

American Journal of Digestive Diseases 23:963-980.

2001 Persistence of Lactase Activity among Northern Euro-

peans: A Weighing of Evidence for the Calcium Absorption

Hypothesis. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 40(5):397-469.

Specker, Bonnie, and Karen Wosje

2001 A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Relating Calcium and

Dairy Intake to Bone Health Early in Life. In Nutritional Aspects

of Osteoporosis. P. Burckhardt, B. Dawson-Hughes, and R. P.

Heaney, eds. Pp. 107-123. New York: Academic Press.

Stein, Philip L., and Bruce M. Rowe

2000 Physical Anthropology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Suarez, Fabrizis L., Jacqueline Adshead, Julie K. Furne, and Michael

D. Levitt

1998 Lactose Maldigestion Is Not an Impediment to the Intake

of 1,500 mg. Calcium Daily as Dairy Products. American Jour-

nal of Clinical Nutrition 68:1118-1122.

Suarez, Fabrizis L., Dennis A. Savaiano, Paul A. Arbisi, and Michael

D. Levitt

1997 Tolerance to the Daily Ingestion of Two Cups of Milk by

Individuals Claiming Lactose Intolerance. American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition 65:1502-1506.

Tapper, Melbourne

1995 Interrogating Bodies: Medico-Racial Knowledge, Politics,

and the Study of a Disease. Comparative Studies in Society and

History 37:76-93.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1990 Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990. Electronic document,

www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/fldact.htm, accessed August 7, 2003.

1998 Data Tables: Food and Nutrient Intakes 1994-1996.

Electronic document, www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/foodsurvey/

home.htm, accessed October 15, 2003.

2002 Report to Congress on the National Dairy Promotion and

Research Program and the National Fluid Milk Processor Pro-

motion Program. Washington, DC: USDA.

2003 The National School Lunch Program: History and De-

velopment. Electronic document, www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/

INCLUDES/NSLPBackgroundandDevelopment.htm#NATIO-

NAL%20SCHOOL%20LUNCH%20ACT%20APPROVED,

accessed October 2, 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce

2002 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2002. Washington,

DC: U. S. Census.

Wang, Yangxi, Clare B. Harvey, Edward J. Hollox, Alan D. Phillips,

Mark Poulter, Peter Clay, John A. Walker-Smith, and Dallas M.

Swallow

1998 The Genetically Programmed Down-Regulation of Lactase

in Children. Gastroenterology 114:1230-1236.

Wardlaw, Gordon M., and Paul M. Insel

1996 Perspectives in Nutrition. Baltimore, MD: Mosby.

Weinsier, Roland L., and Carlos L. Krumdieck

2000 Dairy Foods and Bone Health: Examination of the

Evidence. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 72:681-

689.

Whaley, Arthur L.

2003 Ethnicity/Race, Ethics, and Epidemiology. Journal of the

National Medical Association 95(8):736-742.

Wiley, Andrea S.

2004 Does Milk Make Children Grow? Poster presented at the

Human Biology Association Meetings, Tampa, FL, April 14.

milk for fitness

Documents