Delgado 1

Emily Delgado Salceda

December 12, 2015
English Class Professor Allison Fernley
Position Synthesis Final
Milk, the New Headliner
We all remember being encouraged to drink milk when we were younger because we
were told that it was good for our bones and was a nutritious source of vitamins. But with recent
times, this has changed, many Americans today believe that drinking milk is no longer necessary
and that it is indeed toxic to the body. This controversy first began when a recent study published
by British Medical Journal created confusion and fear in milk consumers. This article claimed
that drinking milk did not strengthen bones as we had been told often, but that instead increased
fractures and deteriorated health. Media got a hold of this story and made it their flashing
headline. This then led Americans to split on the statement that milk was still relevant to health.
This led to the pursuit of my question, is milk indeed bad for humans? In discussions of milk,
one controversial issue has been the scarce research that both the pro and con sides present to
back up their statements. On the one hand, naysayers of milk argue that even though there has
been research that proves milk is beneficial to our bones, it is limited. On the other hand, pro
milk advocates contend that while there has been little to no research found that proves milk
actually harms humans, it is being read selectively. Others even maintain that milk can be both
good and bad for our health, but it depends on who is consuming the milk and what type of milk
theyre consuming.
Those who oppose milk consumption would argue that recent findings have proven milk
contributes to some frightening illnesses. Campbell in particular insists that conditions like type

Delgado 2
1 diabetes, cancer, bone fractures, increased cholesterol levels, acne, constipation, and even death
are all linked to milk. The essence of Campbells argument is largely related to the fact that he
has personally researched these cons of milk and has found evidence. Other researchers have
also found the same outcomes. In addition to this statement, according to Campbell and Jaret
milk consumption can affect weight due to the calories which contributes to type 1 diabetes and
other health issues in the future. In other words, this is where most naysayers of milk would
agree milk is not beneficial for our daily diets. Following this same line of reasoning, they also
emphasize the fact that food pyramids from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
recommend a dairy intake that is not necessary. They would go as far as pointing out that
Harvard in particular agrees with this line of reasoning. They assert that milk can be avoided by
getting your calcium from fruits and vegetables instead. But, as Jaret mentions in his article, the
USDA has decided to not include this information because Americans already lack in consuming
fruits and veggies, therefore, this would make no difference in peoples diets. In other words,
those against milk feel that the government is misleading consumers by including a daily intake
of dairy that is not necessarily needed. As mentioned earlier, naysayers of milk would also
oppose those who support milk by advocating that there is only little proof that milk actually
strengthens bones. In other words, to them this is a weak argument that doesnt have enough
evidence to support the allegations themselves (Campbell and Jaret).
Yet pro milk advocates would argue against this article and state that the British Medical
Journal is only reading the research selectively. They would also argue that there are more
studies proving that milk is beneficial than those that oppose it. Naysayers of milk, however,
have stated that milk indeed causes fractures and osteoporosis (a medical condition in which the
bones become brittle and fragile), but Jonas proves that these naysayers have been reading their

Delgado 3
evidence selectively. Jonas explains in the study contributed by the British Medical Journal that
naysayers found milk had some harmful effects on females, but that it helped to fortify bone
health of men. But this statement put forth by the naysayers makes you wonder, if milk helped
males, then why doesnt it help females bodies the same? Jonas goes on to explain that women
are more prone to be diagnosed with osteoporosis than men are, which would explain why
osteoporosis was more advanced in women than men in this research. In other words, despite the
disclaimer of this research, naysayers of milk have not been truthful about informing the public
of the full research outcomes, but have rather swayed the evidence in such a way to make a false
statement appear as true. In short, by not including this fact in the original research, women are
more prone to be diagnosed with osteoporosis, the naysayers make it seem that milk caused this
problem when indeed it didnt, because this is a genetic problem that already exists in females.
Pro advocates of milk would also agree that even though there are alternatives to milk,
Americans dont often enjoy them as much as milk. While they agree that fruits and vegetables
can be a substitution for milk, they state that milk is an easier and faster way to obtain the daily
necessary nutrients for our bodies. They uphold that milk provides benefits which include bone
and heart health, vitamin D, as well as 9 essential nutrients for the body. In other words, milk is
super packed with benefits for our health. In addition, another argument for milk would be that
even though milk contains a certain amount of calories this is actually a benefit, because it keeps
our body full longer which in turn helps with over eating (Jonas and Micco).
But still, there is a third group who is of two minds and believes it depends on who and
what type of milk is being consumed. They would uphold that choosing to drink milk can have
different effects on people, in such cases that you are lactose intolerant or your doctor has
recommended that you stay away from milk. But still, they believe that milk contains calcium,

Delgado 4
choline, potassium, and vitamin D, all which are necessary nutrients for your body, but can be
obtained through other foods. Although they might also note that health and vitamin D can be
obtained through sunshine and exercise. They would maintain that when drinking milk it is better
to opt for whole milk rather than low-fat or any other milk for that fact because it is the fat in
whole milk that helps our body retain the vitamins from milk. Furthermore, consuming any other
type of milk other than whole would be unrewarding for our health. They uphold that research
has concluded allegations of heart disease as false and that in type 2 diabetes cases, low fat milk
has proven to worsen health. Therefore, they ultimately believe that milk consumption benefits
and cons depend on the person who is drinking it and what type of milk they are drinking. In
short, there are substitutions for milk such as fruits and veggies, but this third party would
encourage consumers to research for themselves and see what benefits each individual (Ware and
Planck ).
As a result of researching this ongoing debate I have decided that I agree most with the
third party, I am of two minds. Naysayers of milk are right to feel confused about the food
pyramid that the USDA provided, because I, myself, felt somewhat cheated as a consumer, into
believing that my daily dairy intake should be higher when in reality it didnt need to be. In other
words, this made me feel like the USDA was trying to promote dairy in some way and just
wanted to gain financial benefits. In short, it felt like the USDA was pulling a scam on
consumers, which just didnt set right with me when I first read this article. But, I shortly got
over this feeling when Jaret mentioned that the USDA opted for increasing dairy intake because
if they increased fruit and veggies, it would be impossible for some Americans to follow the food
pyramid. This is largely due to the fact that we are already horrible at consuming healthy foods.
Although I agree with those who oppose milk up to this point, I cannot accept their overall

Delgado 5
conclusion that there is hard evidence and research that proves milk is not beneficiary for
humans. Personally, I feel that naysayers of milk overlook what I consider an important point
about proving their theories correct. The point I am referring to would be the article that was
published in the British Medical Journal, where naysayers were reading their research
selectively and in a misleading way. This is why I am skeptical about opposing milk all together,
because their argument is not rock solid, it is flawed, which has caused me to doubt their
credibility as a whole. Though I largely disagree with naysayers of milk, I still insist that I am
not fully convinced by pro milk advocates either. Because after all this researching, I genuinely
believe that both milk and increase in fruit and veggie consumptions can provide the necessary
nutrients that our bodies need. I agree that one should invest time in researching what daily diet
is best for each individual because my experience with lactose intolerant friends confirms it. In
other words, my friends are perfectly healthy in spite of their lack of dairy in their daily diets.
Another reason that I am of two minds is because I believe that maintaining a healthy lifestyle
can be accomplished when one maintains an active exercise lifestyle. In short, one is not
automatically healthy because they consume milk, but because they put effort into being cautious
about what they eat and how they live their lifestyle. To sum up, we carry our bodies and if we
are not careful of what we put in them, we might carry a heavy burden in the future.
Ultimately what is at stake here is your personal health. Therefore, if something is bad for
us, we deserve to know this, and if something is beneficial to our lives, we should also be
informed about this. In short, everyone, whether they know it or not, consumes milk, so its an
interesting topic because we encounter milk daily. For example, if you were swayed by the
naysayers of milk, this would impact how you raise your children in the future or how you
associate milk to health. On the other hand if you agree with the pro advocates of milk you might

Delgado 6
consume milk to avoid over eating. It is simple things like this that change our lives and
depending on who you are can benefit you individually. However, I greatly encourage everyone
to find out what works best for each individual and not be swayed by flashing headlines, which is
what started this debate in the first place.

Delgado 7
Works Cited
Campbell, Thomas. "12 Frightening Facts About Milk: Nutrition Studies." 31 October 2014.
Nutrition Studies. Article. 1 November 2015.
Jaret, Peter. "Diet: WebMD." 28 February 2011. WebMD. Article. 1 November 2015.
Jonas, Sheridan. "Is Milk Good or Bad?: Toby Amidor: Nutrition." 29 June 2015. Toby Amidor:
Nutrition. Article. 8 November 2015.
Micco, Nicci. "Four Reasons to Love Milk: EatingWell." July 2010. Eating Well. Article. 8
November 2015.
Planck, Nina. "Gale: Opposing Viewpoints in Context." 12 February 2006. Opposing Viewpoints
in Context. Article. 7 November 2015.
Ware, Megan. "Articles: Medical News Today." 13 July 2015. Medical News Today. Article. 1
November 2015.

Delgado 8
QUESTONS
1. Describe the feedback you got on your presentation and on your rough draft during
peer review. Give specific details. How did your revise your paper using this
feedback?
My peers were wondering about the specific harms that milk causes to the body
and I feel that I explained that well in my paper. I also got a lot of my peers that were
against milk because they had found that there are certain things about milk that is not
natural. This was an interesting outcome that I did not expect, because again, I had never
heard someone speak against milk until I started researching my question. Also from my
meeting with the professor I was able to clarify the pro milk advocate side and make it
clearer to my readers what I meant in that whole paragraph. Which helped to make my
position on the topic easier to follow.
2. Who is your think tank audience or organization? How did you revise your paper to
make it more appealing and persuasive to the think tank as your audience? Give
details, especially pointing out where in the paper we can see how you are
addressing the organization you have chosen.
I would say that my think tank audience is those who are of two minds on the
milk subject. I would say that by including my lengthy opinion on the matter I managed
to include all of the point of views in it and make it clearer for audience why milk is a
personal matter. I reinforce this matter again, that everyone should decide for themselves
if milk is beneficial to them or not in my conclusion.
3. How well do you think you have met the criteria for this paper? Give me details
and point to places where I can see you meeting the criteria
I think that I have met and followed the criteria for this paper accordingly. From
the research that I pursued I was able to form an introduction paragraph that made it clear
to the audience why there was controversy on this topic. I also provided three paragraphs
depicting the three very different point of views on milk. This was by comparing and
contrasting opinions within the three groups. I was also able to give my own take on this
matter and why I felt that why by referring to the three different sides of this matter.
Lastly, in my conclusion I was able to state why this matter was relevant today and who
cared about it, while still asserting my own point of view. I was able to accomplish all of
this by using some templates and transition words that helped to add to my paper as a
whole.