Nature is not designed to do anything. That's the first misconception that
Sue is promulgating. And nothing that humans eat or drink that is part of nature
is against nature. That's the second.

Humans are omnivores. We can eat anything that is digestible, and over the
history of the world humans have eaten every single thing that is. All the body
cares about is that the source food is capable of being broken down into amino
acids, fatty acids, and simple sugars, and contain vitamins and minerals as
well.

Milk from all animals obviously fits into this category. Saying that cow's
milk should be a food for humans because it is "designed" for cows is a
deliberate piece of ignorance - a lie in so many words - bandied about by the
anti-milk forces. There is no science to back this up. Why not say that humans
shouldn't eat apples because they were "designed" to spread their seeds to make more
apple trees?

"The laws of nature are species specific." Excuse my harshness, but this is
unbelievable ignorance. Every species must, must, eat other species to survive.
The alternative is cannibalism. Whether the other species is from plants or
animals or their byproducts makes no difference whatsoever. The slightest
moment of thought or understanding would show you that this simply has to be true
or all life on earth would fail.

Animal milk historically became valuable because it would keep alive those
who had no other usable sources of food: babies and the elderly who had lost
their teeth primarily. That doesn't mean that animal milk is a perfect substitute
for mother's milk, but it doesn't have to be. It does contain large amounts
of the fats, proteins, sugars, vitamins, and minerals that humans can use for
nutrition. Animal milk contains more of these in a concentrated form than any
other single food, as a matter of fact.

We are fortunate today that we have an unlimited variety of types of food to
choose from. We can choose to make milk part of our diets or choose to
strictly and rigorously exclude it from our diets. Even those who choose to make it
part of their diets need to supplement the milk with other food because only
mother's milk is a complete food source for humans. But that should never be
confused with what happens after weaning, when no other single food is complete
and the whole range of other edible products comes into play.

In short, every single line that Sue wrote is incorrect. It's critical that
people who choose to take one important source of nutrition out of their diets
know more about food, more about digestion, more about physiology than the
average person. Putting sheer nonsense onto this list is dangerous and unwelcome.
I will fight it loudly whenever I see it, even if that means hurt feelings.

If you'd like to know more about these subjects, or just check out my
credentials, take a look at my book, Milk Is Not for Every Body: Living with Lactose
Intolerance. Or go to my website, Steve Carper's Lactose Intolerance
Clearinghouse, http://ourworld.comspurse.com/homepages/stevecarper. Or my Planet
Lactose blog, http://planetlactose.blogspot.com/.

I'm sorry, Sue, but your statements cannot go unchallenged.

Steve Carper