On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, matesz wrote:

> Is there a scientific basis for the claim that the casein of each
> species is molecularly different?
>
> My reply:
> Each mammalian species produces a very unique milk designed specifically for
> promoting growth and development of the young of the species in question.
> The protein, carb, fat, and mineral ratios differ in each species milk,
> according to the growth rate of the species in question and its relative
> brain to body ratio.

The context of my question, however, is not whether the milk of
another species should be fed to human babies.  I think we can
all agree that the only proper food for human babies is human
milk (although neither my father nor I could tolerate the stuff).

But since this molecular difference exists, I just wonder how
relevant it is to the food choices of grown humans.  The design
argument here is clearly irrelevant, since it applies as well to
all animal proteins.  None of them were in any meaningful sense
designed to be eaten by us.

This is one of those potentially key points of difference between
the Neanderthin sort of approach and the approach favored by
Weston Price, Mary Enig, etc.  The latter group strongly
recommend the use of *fermented* dairy foods as important sources
of vitamins and medium-chain fats.  Price regarded quality butter
and fermented milk products as important health foods.  The
rejection of dairy products from the so-called paleo diet is
based on the premise that they were unavailable to  people prior
to domestication.  There appears to be solid empirical evidence
that unfermented dairy foods cause health problems.  I am simply
trying to fit all these pieces together.  The best resolution
that I can come up with is that paleo people *did* get a fair
amount of fermented dairy food, in the form of stomach contents
of killed suckling mammals, and they took full advantage of it.
But this does not imply that they fed their babies anything other
than human breast milk.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]