Although I don't necessarily wish to jump on the Burger-bashing wagon
(since I know little about him), please consider the following. Burger
writes with respect to the differences between human and cow milk and hence
to the non-suitability of the latter for humans:

"The proteins synthesized by different animal species are lined up on
specific models that are as different on a molecular scale as physical
traits are on an ordinary scale."

This seems all well and good but aren't the proteins that constitute human
tissue and bovine tissue just as different (as the milk) on the molecular
scale? In fact, aren't the proteins that constitute human tissue also
different from the glutinous ones found in grains and the sulfurous ones
found in chicken eggs, and those in nuts, etc.? And if so, we seem to be
left with two possibilities about the suitability of dairy: (1) Either
eating cow flesh (or any other animal flesh for that matter) or any
protein-containing
"food" is inadvisable because of the foreign nature of the inherent protein
or (2) although there may be reasons that dairy products (whether from cow
or goat or whatever) are poor choices for the human system, the fact that
they contain foreign proteins is not one of them. Of course, if there's any
truth to the first possibility, then the anopsological claim that non-human
flesh (but not non-human milk) is an appropriate human food has some
obvious problems.

david
[log in to unmask]