I had to chime in on this one too...

people have been drinking milk, eating bread, munching on pure fat since these were discovered to be edible foodstuffs...

NOW all these asshat studies say carbs=BAD, milk=BAD, any kind of fat=BAD. screw you guys and the white horse you came in on. All these things are still great for your body if taken in the right quantities and in fact are basically needed.

for you pussies that can drink milk but just won't, drink this instead:
http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/1238/malk7ax.jpg

Other things that pple have to remember, if they want to explore the allergen angle, is that we have come a long way in eliminating germs and pathogens from our food supplies. And although this is all good and dandy, it has created some strange, undesirable side effects.

The removal of gut pathogens seem to have created an increase in hearth burn. More sanitized environments seem to have created an increase in allergic reactions and cases of people suffering from allergies.

[...]

How does this has to do with this milk debate? Well, one of the things the anti-milk crowd like to cling to is that a certain % of people are allergic to lactose.

But so what I say. People with a lactose intollerance are free to choose to use milk alternatives such as soy milk or rice milk.

Or they can choose to decrease the amount of milk they ingest, for, after all, an allergic or intolerance reaction only occurs after a certain amount of milk has been ingested (not because of the presence of milk). Furthermore, lactose tolerance can be developed. Although you are in general correct about everything you say, let's not confuse lactose intolerance with an allergy to lactose. I expect you already know most or all of this, but to clarify to others why I make a distinction:

Lactose intolerance is the condition of producing insufficient amounts of the enzyme lactase to digest lactose (milk sugar), resulting in the lactose fermenting in the gut, causing symptoms like gas, cramps, and diarrhea. This is, in fact, the norm for the human species, except for infants. Lactose tolerance, where lactase is produced after the weaning age, is a much rarer condition, which seems to have resulted from mutations that were positively selected for in various societies where cattle were raised and the ability of adults to consume their milk was beneficial -- in northern Europe and northern Africa, in particular. Most of our species (about 70%) is still lactose intolerant. What you say above applies well to lactose intolerance. (Most black people are lactose intolerant; many are not. I believe lactose intolerance is even more wide-spread among Asians.)

An allergy is a form of hypersensitivity, where the immune system produces a reaction -- usually extreme in magnitude -- to a substance that is not generally considered a pathogen. Unlike an enzyme deficiency condition like lactose intolerance, the amount of an allergen ingested doesn't matter all that much. I am lactose intolerant and allergic to a host of things (though not milk). I can consume small amounts of dairy with no problems whatsoever. I need only consume a bite of, say, goma-ae which some cheapass Japanese restaurant prepares with peanut butter instead of sesame seed paste without notifying customers, and I need to go to the ER and get on a Benadryl IV. Bitterness aside, an allergy is often triggered by minute amounts of allergens, such as airborne pollens or even such airborne molecules as comprise a smell.



I'm just pondering, along the general skeptical path. with a venture into Road to Wellville land. (which you really should go rent). How much fad nutrition over the years has been driven by a desire to reduce flatulence. This isn't scatological trolling. While there are a tiny number of people who have more serious issues, for the vast majority of people with these problems both lactose intolerance and the earlier mentioned gluten intolerance both manifest as gas when people eat too much of the specific thing for their bodies to handle. Other than that tiny number, they don't really cause any long term issues, and the person is still able to digest the food and get (most of) the nutritional value out of it. Do note gas, cramps, and diarrhea. It's not long-term, but it can be fucking painful.


I would be of the opinion that the average traditional rancher would treat its free-roaming animals with care to the best of his abilities, either here or south of the border.

Somewhere along the line we lost perspective, and in the name of increased productivity, we have given animals the shorter end of the stick (in particular chicken.) This is why I support and buy free-roaming, organic products (unless my monthly budget gets tight.)

The need to correct this situation, however, will never be enough justification to embrace emo-dramatic fanatical stupidity and dishonest misinformation tactics.
I agree with you, and furthermore think that misinformation tactics are ultimately detrimental. In the short term you can fool idiots into supporting you; in the long term you risk having your lies exposed, and you may have your entire argument dismissed on the basis that it is built on lies. I will cheerfully, in the midst of debate, attack people whose conclusion I agree with if I disagree with their arguments. If it cannot be supported by truth, it is not a position worth holding.