Before we start this (and you know I love controversy!).. I am *not* debating my views.

[conuly]

Sorry. If you wish to know my feelings on the dairy industry, there is one site on my links list which should make the point very clear, even if you never visit it.

I just have a question. Got that? No arguments over the merits of consuming dairy products or alternate sources of calcium or anything. Just a question.

How could anybody reasonably say that people have to drink milk to be healthy? No species could possibly evolve with a necessity for the milk of another species, or even their own species after a certain age. That's insane! We can't escape our evolution, and we haven't had domesticated animals long enough for us to evolve to need them. So, how is it justified to say we need milk? I'm actually curious here, not argumentative.

Comments

[georgiapeachy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that site is a little bit fanatic in my opinion, I see they have a valid point, but a lot of their things seem like scare tactics. I find the things about flo-jos death being because of milk esspecially offensive. I'm sure you can find problems with anything, you could start a NOTAPPLES website that could have studies on all the pesticides that are on apples, and all the types of rot and worms apples have. A NOTWHEAT website would have all the stuff about how many people suffer from problems associated with wheat allergies they don't even know they have, how harvesting wheat uses poorly treated migrant workers and how it kills innocent animals living in the fields, how wheat contains traces of poisons etc.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

What got me was their fascination with pus.

Pus is plasma and white blood cells. There's nothing gross about pus itself-- but it's meant to clean up an infection, so the end result gets a bit nasty. The substance itself is pretty dang innocuous.

I'm not some insane pro-milk person (but what else will I drink with my cookies!?) but call me leery of studies, especially after studying psychology.