Francis Orlando wrote:
>
> My intent is not to say don't eat or drink dairy here, but:
>
> Does anyone believe in eating what can be obtained in a somewhat
> "natural" fashion, or is that not really an issue?

I think that for many people, it isn't an issue.  Even for those
for whom it is an issue, it isn't all as simple as some may think.
Where does one draw the line between natural and unnatural?  It
depends on how nitpicking one wants to get.

For example, one person might just say "animals are a natural food
for humans".  That one huge category - "animals" - includes fish,
crustaceans, insects, slugs, birds, all sorts of things.  But if
someone else wants to divide that category further between those
animals that were readily available to our ancestors and those that
were not and only consider those in the first category to be natural
human food, lobsters, hummingbirds, and other creatures that weren't
very accessible to our early ancestors would be out.

But should they be?  Are they so different from those animals that
we had better access to?  Is their biochemistry baffling to our di-
gestive system?  I doubt it.  Life on Earth is startlingly similar
below the surface.  And so it is with milk.  Whether one would have
access to it in nature doesn't necessarily decide whether one's
system can derive benefit from it or not.

And where does this train of thought take us when it comes to plants?

Carol