The Cat Study
Let us examine what Pottenger actually had to
say in his article.
“In the first series of experiments, one
group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw
meat, one-third raw milk and cod-liver oil. The
second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked
meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. Within
the ten-year period, approximately nine hundred
cats were studied. The amount of data accumulated
is large.
“The cats receiving raw meat and raw milk
reproduced in homogeneity from one generation
to the next. Abortion was uncommon and the mother
cats nursed their young in a normal manner. The
cats had good resistance to vermin, infections
and parasites. They behaved in a predictable manner.
Their organic development was complete and functioned
normally.
“Cats receiving the cooked-meat scraps reproduced
a heterogeneous strain of kittens, each kitten
of the litter being different in skeletal pattern.
Abortion in these cats was common, running about
25 per cent in the first generation to about 70
per cent in the second generation. Deliveries
were in general difficult, many cats dying in
labor. Mortality rates of the kittens were high,
frequently due to the failure of the mother to
lactate. The kittens were often too frail to nurse.”
Based on this quote, one might reasonably conclude
that the problems observed were due to differences
in the nutrition provided by raw versus cooked
meats. We see here how a true statement in the
“Health Fetish” article (“Pottenger
observed many diseases in cats fed raw milk and
cooked meat”) may be placed in a context
designed to lead the reader into making false
conclusions.
The next half-truth is even more
subtle: “Smaller experiments in the same
article showed that a diet of one-third raw meat
and two-thirds milk (pasteurized or not) did not
provide adequate nutrition for the cats”.
Further examination of Pottenger’s article
is required to understand the subterfuge involved.
Again quoting Pottenger: “We
did three other series of feeding experiments.
In these series we used the following kinds of
milk: raw milk, raw metabolized vitamin D milk,
pasteurized milk, evaporated milk, and sweetened
condensed milk. Roughly, our results corresponded
with those of the previous experiments; animals
on raw milk and raw meat reproduced a homogenous
strain, the usual causes of natural death being
old age or injuries from fighting.
“The male cats fed on [raw] metabolized
vitamin D milk (from cattle fed irradiated yeast)
and raw meat showed osseous disturbances very
like those on pasteurized milk…Young males
did not live beyond the second month, and adult
males died within ten months….The cats fed
pasteurized milk as their principal item of diet,
and raw meat as a partial diet, showed lessened
reproductive efficiency in the females, and some
skeletal changes, while the kittens presented
deficiencies in development….Later, we made
a comparative study of several types of milk on
white rats, the general results of which coincided
with those found in the cats.”
Word Games
We see that Pottenger’s own words describe
clearly the superior value of raw versus pasteurized
milk for the animals. Yet the “Health Fetish”
authors statement that “a diet of one-third
raw meat and two-thirds milk (pasteurized or not)
did not provide adequate nutrition for the cats”
is strictly speaking true, because of the use
of the phrase “pasteurized or not.”
One experiment used raw metabolized vitamin D
milk, and like the pasteurized, evaporated, and
sweetened condensed milks, this resulted in diseased
animals. The metabolized vitamin D (a synthetic
form of the vitamin present in the milk because
the cows had been fed irradiated yeast) proved
to be so toxic that it overrode the benefits of
the otherwise optimal all-raw diet that were obtained
in the animals fed plain raw milk. Thus one type
of milk that was not pasteurized had indeed not
provided adequate nutrition. Had the “Health
Fetish” authors used the phrase “pasteurized
or raw,” the statement would have been false,
because the word raw would be referring to both
raw milks tested - the raw metabolized-vitamin-D
milk that did not provide adequate nutrition,
and the plain raw milk that did. The choice of
the word “not” makes the distortion
possible without actually making a false statement.
Very clever indeed. There is no discussion of
the toxicity of the synthetic vitamin D in the
“Health Fetish” article, and no mention
of the sparkling health seen in generation after
generation of cats fed raw meat and raw milk free
of synthetic vitamin D.
The “Health Fetish” authors make one
other statement that may not be called an untruth,
yet is obviously designed to lead one to false
conclusions: “Raw milk advocates have erroneously
cited this article as having reported that disease
occurred in cats fed pasteurized
milk.” I’ll repeat what Pottenger
reported: “The cats fed pasteurized milk
as their principal item of diet, and raw meat
as a partial diet, showed lessened reproductive
efficiency in the females, and some skeletal changes,
while the kittens presented deficiencies in development.”
Pottenger indeed does not use the word “disease”
here or anywhere else in this article in reference
to animals fed pasteurized milk (the article is
about effects on the dental and facial structures
of the animals). Yet his finding of the superiority
of raw versus pasteurized milk is clearly presented.
In fact, in one experiment described briefly,
13 cats fed pasteurized milk all died within several
months.
The “Health Fetish” authors make no
mention of a number of other relevant findings
published in the Pottenger article. For example,
an autopsy photograph shows the internal organs
of a cat that had been fed a diet of one-third
raw meat and two-thirds pasteurized milk for eight
months before being sacrificed. The caption reads,
“Note poor tone of skin and inferior quality
of fur. Fair heart. Slight fatty atrophy of the
liver. Lack of intestinal tone: moderated distension
of uterus. Note the disturbance of the skin with
a shift from the creamy color of the raw-milk
fed cat to the purplish discoloration of congestion.”
In contrast, another photograph
shows the internal organs of a cat fed a diet
of one-third raw meat and two-thirds raw milk
all of its life. The caption reads, “Note
excellent condition of fur and creamy yellow subcutaneous
tissue with high vascularity. Moderate heart size.
Good liver, firm intestines, and resting uterus.
Note the muscle of the raw-milk-fed animal has
a deeper red color and appears more vascular that
that of the animals receiving the heat-processed
milks.”
Another experiment began with 13
cats in excellent health that had been raised
on raw meat and raw milk. A table is used to show
how long these cats lived after being placed on
a diet of one-third raw meat and two-thirds pasteurized
milk. The average length of life for the males
is 4 months 11 days, for the females 3 months
27 days. The calcium to phosphorous ratio of each
cat’s femur (thighbone) is shown, and all
are abnormal.
Two X-ray photographs depict the
results of another experiment that used two rats,
one fed raw milk (rat A) and the other pasteurized
(rat B). The caption for the raw-milk animal reads,
“Note advanced maturity, greater diameter
and length of the olecranon process [part of the
elbow] of the ulna [the long bone in the foreleg].”
The caption for the pasteurized milk animal reads,
“Note smaller olecranon process and delayed
maturity when compared with rat A.”
Another photograph shows a number
of bones from one of the cats, previously healthy,
that died four months after being placed on the
one-third-raw-meat and two-thirds-pasteurized-milk
diet. The caption reads, “Note missing teeth,
chalky appearance of bone, squaring of the bases
of teeth and marked root resorption. Osteoporosis.
Lack of completion of orbital arches [the orbit
is the eye socket]. Malar bones [the cheek bones]
have become separated at suture lines [where the
bones come together].”
An X-ray of the jaw of a living
cat fed the raw-meat/raw-milk diet all of its
life is presented. The caption reads, “Normal
jaw structure, good distribution of trabeculae
[part of the bony structure], well developed condyle
[a knob at the end of the bone], and well developed
pterygoid process [a little outgrowth of bone]
of the mandible [jaw bone]. Alveolar crest [the
alveolus is the bony socket for the root of a
tooth] of normal height; even distribution of
teeth.”
Logically True But Misleading
My object here is not to give a
lesson in anatomy, but rather to make accessible
to the reader some of the details of Pottenger’s
findings. In this article he focused primarily
on the effects of heat-processed foods, including
pasteurized milk, on the bones and jaws of his
experimental animals because the article was written
for a dental journal. In many other articles published
over the course of some fifteen years, he emphasizes
the diseases that result in cats and other animals
when fed diets that include pasteurized milk.
Another statement by the “Health
Fetish” authors deserves further comment:
“Numerous studies of the relative nutritional
merits of raw and pasteurized milk have been conducted
in animals and humans, and no differences were
detectable.” This appears to be a simple
statement of fact. Since in reality numerous studies
of the relative nutritional merits of raw and
pasteurized milk conducted in animals and humans
have shown clearly the nutritional superiority
of raw milk, one is tempted to declare the “Health
Fetish” statement to be untrue. But in fact
it is a true statement! Now how can that be? To
answer this question, we must do a little exercise
in logic.
Examine these two statements:
1.
“Numerous studies of the relative nutritional
merits of raw and pasteurized milk have been conducted
in animals and humans, and no
differences were detectable.”
2.
“Numerous studies of the relative
nutritional merits of raw and pasteurized milk
have been conducted in animals and humans, and
vast differences
were detectable.”
It appears that if one statement
is true, the other must be false, right? Wrong!
Both statements
may be true - it all depends on what “numerous
studies” the writer is referring to, and
when he doesn’t tell us, he isn’t
pinned down. Even if the writer is aware of numerous
studies that favor both sides of the argument,
statements 1 and 2 may both be defended as true
statements (in a court of law, for example, or
in a subsequent article). Understanding this element
of logic is necessary when writers employ logical
tricks. Young people who go on to medical school
usually study logic as undergraduates.
Notice that although the authors
refer to Pottenger’s animal study in the
very next sentence, they carefully do not say
it is one of the “numerous studies”
to which they have just referred. We get the impression
that it is, of course. But they do not say this,
for to do so would be false; as we have seen,
Pottenger’s study undeniably shows the nutritional
superiority of raw milk as compared to pasteurized.
But it is almost as though someone
played a game of perverse (dare I say fetishistic?)
logic, devising technically true statements which
would disguise Pottenger’s findings, distort
the meaning of his words and trick the reader
into false conclusions. I’ve studied Pottenger’s
work for over twenty years, and it took me hours
to untangle the web I’ve described.
It is indeed a fact that a number
of researchers supported by grants from the dairy
industry have published research that claimed
to find no significant differences in the relative
nutritional merits of raw and pasteurized milk.
In other parts of this book I detail reasons to
question the validity of research funded by corporate
money or conducted by individuals funded by corporations.
No references are given for the “numerous
studies” mentioned above, so it is not possible
to examine them.
The “Health Fetish”
authors carefully avoided any simple, straightforward
statement to the effect of, “None of the
reasonable studies in animals or humans of which
we are aware have shown that there is a significant
difference in the relative nutritional merits
of raw and pasteurized milk.” They also
avoided words to the effect of “The Pottenger
study under discussion showed no significant difference
in the relative nutritional merits of raw and
pasteurized milk.” Either statement would
have been patently false, because scores of reasonable
studies, obviously including this Pottenger study,
and many others examined in this book, demonstrate
the nutritional superiority of raw versus pasteurized
milk.
We’ve seen that the “Health Fetish”
authors used technically (logically) true statements
to completely distort Dr. Pottenger’s findings.
Only careful study of Pottenger’s article
would allow the choice of precisely the right
words to accomplish this while avoiding making
false statements. We may hope that the authors
gained considerable understanding of Pottenger’s
work and its implications for the health of people
everywhere. Perhaps they may someday use that
knowledge in the way Dr. Pottenger intended.
|
