On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 22:23:49 -0800, alexs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>>..For one, it is intended
>>>to be used by a baby cow, hence the sole purpose of cows milk.
>>
>>This is an absurd argument - a strawberry is "intended" to be used by the ground
>>to grow a new strawberry bush, not for our digestion, yet all reports are that
>>strawberries are excellent for your health, and part of virtually all diet
>>plans.
>
>Your analogy is also faulty. Strawberries are intended indeed as a means of
>propagating strawberries, and aside from the odd allergy, is perfectly
>suited for all animal consumption. However, milk is tailored to the needs of
>the subject species. Animal milk will always be a distant second to
>breastmilk in terms of supporting human brain development, and contains
>growth factors that are unsuitable for adult consumption, regardless of
>species.

As someone else pointed out (and by the way, it's good form to read all the
posts before replying), strawberries were a bad example (as are any fruit).

The argument is so ridiculous that I did not spend any time thinking of what the
best counterexample was.

However, any vegetable is a better counterexample (eg broccoli or celery), since
they do not depend on animal consumption for their propagation.

Usually these silly anti-milk arguments are cited by vegans.   It is amazingly
absurd for hunter-gatherers to claim that cow milk is not "meant" for other
species to consume - but that the rest of the cow is !! :-) :-)

>>This is not an argument against milk, it is an argument against certain
>>practices in the processing and production of milk by certain corporations.
>>The same argument applies to beef, lettuce and corn.
>
>But we're not considering those other products. The milk industry
>continues to insist that "milk is good food" for all, but plenty
>of research suggests the opposite. The situation is very similar
>to the tobacco industry's shrill and insistent denial that smoking
>contributes to cancer.

Your missing the point entirely.   What is said by a billion industry spokesmen
cannot affect whether something is healthful or not (although it might be
interesting to have a wrestling match between the beef spokesman and the wheat
spokesman as a way of deciding the food pyramid issue).

What the industries say is IRRELEVANT.   And, the fact that Mr. Not Milk is
angry at the milk industry is his own personal psychological problem and has no
bearing on whether we should consume it or not.

>Many Paleos and others who go off milk for more than a month cannot
>return to it without suffering the mucousy side effects.

Many vegans who go off meat for more than a month cite various positive blah
blah blah.   Many people who go low-fat for more than a month cite various
positive blah blah blah.   These anecdotes are no proof of anything.

My own personal opinion is that the one thing that D'Adamo is right about is
that some people do have a physiology that allows them to consume the milk of
herd animals, and some people don't.   Considering that herding is more ancient
than agriculture, it seems like a possibility.

--
Cheers,

Ken