All Publications

  • Effect of raw milk on lactose intolerance: a randomized controlled pilot study. Annals of family medicine Mummah, S., Oelrich, B., Hope, J., Vu, Q., Gardner, C. D. 2014; 12 (2): 134-141


    PURPOSE This pilot study aimed to determine whether raw milk reduces lactose malabsorption and/or lactose intolerance symptoms relative to pasteurized milk. METHODS We performed a crossover trial involving 16 adults with self-reported lactose intolerance and lactose malabsorption confirmed by hydrogen (H2) breath testing. Participants underwent 3, 8-day milk phases (raw vs 2 controls: pasteurized, soy) in randomized order separated by 1-week washout periods. On days 1 and 8 of each phase, milk consumption was 473 mL (16 oz); on days 2 to 7, milk dosage increased daily by 118 mL (4 oz), beginning with 118 mL (4 oz) on day 2 and reaching 710 mL (24 oz) on day 7. Outcomes were area under the breath H2 curve (AUC H2) and self-reported symptom severity (visual analog scales: flatulence/gas, audible bowel sounds, abdominal cramping, diarrhea). RESULTS AUC H2 (mean ± standard error of the mean) was higher for raw vs pasteurized on day 1 (113 ± 21 vs 71 ± 12 ppm·min·10(-2), respectively, P = .01) but not day 8 (72 ± 14 vs 74 ± 15 ppm·min·10(-2), respectively, P = .9). Symptom severities were not different for raw vs pasteurized on day 7 with the highest dosage (P >.7). AUC H2 and symptom severities were higher for both dairy milks compared with soy milk. CONCLUSIONS Raw milk failed to reduce lactose malabsorption or lactose intolerance symptoms compared with pasteurized milk among adults positive for lactose malabsorption. These results do not support widespread anecdotal claims that raw milk reduces the symptoms of lactose intolerance.

    View details for DOI 10.1370/afm.1618

    View details for PubMedID 24615309

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3948760

  • Call 1-888-NOT-2-LATE: promoting emergency contraception in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (1972) Trussell, J., Bull, J., Koenig, J., Bass, M., Allina, A., Gamble, V. N. 1998; 53 (5 Suppl 2): 247-50


    In 1997, the nonprofit Reproductive Health Technologies Project and the Office of Population Research at Princeton University, together with the communications firm Elgin DDB, planned and executed a mass media campaign to advertise the Emergency Contraception Hotline and more generally to further awareness of emergency contraception as a last chance means of pregnancy prevention in the United State. We produced a variety of public service announcements (PSAs) including television and radio spots in English and Spanish and several print versions adaptable for newspapers and magazines as well as outdoor settings such as billboards, transit shelters, and the sides of buses. Working with local coalitions, we succeeded in placing the PSAs free of charge in six pilot cities. We also generated coverage about the campaign in local and national news outlets. We chronicle the development of the media campaign, discuss the challenges and obstacles faced, and conclude with a review of the principal lessons learned.

    View details for PubMedID 9859633

  • How many US women need emergency contraception? Contemporary Ob/Gyn Ellertson, C., Koenig, J., Trussell, J., Bull, J. 1997; 42(10): 102-128