Alan wrote:
>An answer that most people funded by the milk industry give, i.e.
>an answer which provides no contradictory evidence at all. Where
>is it and who funded it? Is it not factual that most people stop
>or severely cut back the production of the enzymes rennin and
>lactase after they wean themselves off of (human) milk? What you
>have said (that Carl said) does not explain the high levels of
>osteoporosis in the USA at all. If milk is such a good source of
>calcium as Carl claims..and you guys drink more of the stuff than
>anybody else....

Sorry that this is a few days late ... I've been too busy to get to my
list mail.

One of the problems that exists with the "milk is bad for you no matter
what" arguments is the fact that many long-lived cultures use milk as a
primary staple of their diet.  The Hunza, for instance, use soured milks
and fermented milks, as do many others.  Dr. Price's travels showed no
purely vegan cultures; all successful ones used animal products. There
were NO raw vegan cultures at all. Except for those in colder climates
where vegetation was sparse, meat wasn't a staple, but cheese, butter
and sour milks were.

I feel that the problem with dairy products in this country is not due
to *milk* per se, but to what's done to the animals.  A source of pure
organic raw milk and the human ability to use it wisely would be
conducive to health.  To dismiss milks out of hand (and thereby
dismissing the cultures who have successfully used it) is not getting a
complete picture of the facts.

Irene King

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com