On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, David Ross wrote:

> In my experience, the issue of the unsuitability of "foreign" protein is
> raised with respect to non-native (not the right term I'm sure but you
> understand) milk but not with respect to animal flesh itself. This has long
> puzzled me - is anyone clear about why the protein in "foreign" animal flesh
> might be less problematic?

It's a good question.  Milk is animal "tissue" as much as
blood is, but those of us who are not kosher do not drain the
blood from our meats before we eat them.  The protein in, say, a
lamb chop is as foreign to our bodies as is the protein in milk.

I am aware that the theory is that partially digested milk
protein leaves opioid polypeptide residues, which enter the blood
and are psychoactive.  What is not clear to me is why casein
should be incompletely digested in the first place.  Do all
proteins leave polypeptide residues, but only the ones from
casein and gluten happen to be psychoactive?  If it is the case
that there is a specific form of casein that, for some
biochemical reason, resists the protease enzymes, then that is
worth knowing, especially if that particular form of casein is
absent from human milk.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]