5 ms·

Consider this...Milk is intended to feed baby cows. Humans are not cows. Some cows milk for humans is likely not harmful. But beyond that you're ingesting a coc

Consider this...Milk is intended to feed baby cows. Humans are not cows. Some cows milk for humans is likely not harmful. But beyond that you're ingesting a cocktail of nutrients and hormones intend for a baby cow. Put another way, just because Big Milk has normalized doesn't mean it's a good dietary decision. Proceed at your own risk.

p1necone 3y ago
This is a weird argument. No food is /intended/ to feed humans. Every single thing we eat is just some random bit of plant or animal that happens to be nutritious.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  That's the thing, it's not an argument. Cow's milk is for baby cows. That's biological fact. Full stop. Nothing to argue. Can human ingest it? Yes. Should they? In quantity? Well, other than Big Dairy who has marketed that idea?
  - p1necone 3y ago
    Okay I'll bite. * Spinach leaves are "for" transforming sunlight into plant growth. * Rump steak is "for" moving the back leg of a cow. * Honey is "for" feeding bees. Surely on the "food not for humans <===================> food for humans" scale something that is produced explicitly to feed the young of a fairly closely related mammal is closer to the "for humans" end of the scale than most food? Please note I'm not trying to argue that that you're wrong about your classification of milk not being "for" humans, I'm trying to point out the absurdity of even trying to define food as being for or not for humans in the first place. ================================================= Also talking about "Big Dairy" in this context is a bit silly too. You could definitely argue that milk has been heavily marketed as a "healthy" food in the United States over the past few decades, and maybe considering it to be unusually healthy relative to other foods is a mistake. But trying to argue that humans shouldn't eat it at all while referring to "Big Dairy" is ridiculous - humans have been eating dairy for thousands of years, much longer than modern capitalism has even existed. ================================================= And lastly, saying "it's not an argument, it's fact" is an extremely arrogant way to dodge actually having to justify what you're saying. Don't do that.
- cies 3y ago
  Fruits and apes have a long relationship, that benefits both. Biologically fruit is ape food. Why would that be different for humans? Oh, we changed the world around us, but how fast is our genes in catching up with that?
ASalazarMX 3y ago
Consider this...Corn is intended to feed a baby plant. Humans are not corn. Some corns cob for humans is likely not harmful. But beyond that you're ingesting a cocktail of nutrients and hormones intend for a baby plant. Put another way, just because Big Corn has normalized doesn't mean it's a good dietary decision. Proceed at your own risk. PS. Sorry for being so snarky, but I hope you read my silly comment with an open mind, and realize how weak your argument is as of now. You need facts to back up such extraordinary statement. It even has anthropological implications.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TylerE 3y ago
    A bigger part of the corn syrup thing was basically coincidence of timing - it came out right at one the cyclical peaks of fat vilification. So products were reformulated to have less fat (and often less salt), and surprise surprise, they tasted like crap.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      Cheaper === more consumption. That's basic economics. The corn subsidies drove down the price of that sweetener and in turn those (mostly unhealthy) products feel in price. *And* it became attractive to use in other products. Yes, of course. There are other factors. But that doesn't diminish the fact that tax dollars are used to make the taxpayers unhealthy.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      I should add, that cheaper corn also makes the things that eat corn cheaper. That doesn't mean those things are healthy. The power structure / status quo is based on stability. Hunger / starvation of the masses tends to bring about instability. The point is, the food system is NOT driven by health (of the masses or the environment for that matter). It's driven by Food X's ability to starve off starvation (and associated unrest). That is, just because you're eating what's been normalized doesn't mean it's ideal for your health.
chrisco255 3y ago
Humans are mammals, like cows, so biologically we share a great deal in common, including the production of milk for our young. It doesn't make sense to argue against consuming something on the basis of "what it was intended for". Nature makes no such distinctions when it comes to acquisition of energy. Fruits and vegetables are not "intended for human consumption" either, they're intended to spread the plant's seed away from other competing plants. Cooked cow muscle fibers, also known as steak or beef, are intended for movement, but they are also delicious and nutritious. Organs of ruminants and birds, such as liver, are also extremely healthy for humans to consume, but they of course were evolved with other purposes in mind. As for "big milk", well milk is an extremely dynamic food used to produce a large variety of delicious products like cheese, butter, cream, yogurt, whey protein, cake, milk chocolate, etc. Milk consumption also pre-dates modern advertising by 9000 years or so, with earliest signs of human cultivation of milk from cows dating back to the Neolithic. And to the extent that you choose some milk alternative over milk itself, are you just falling for the Big Almond or Big Soy industry's alternative propaganda?
wil421 3y ago
Humans eat so many different plants and animals that are not from Africa. Everything has hormones and soy can cause issues for some people because it has phytoestrogen.
ars 3y ago
What's with the "Big Milk" business? People have been drinking milk and eating cheese for thousands of years. It's a normal part of the human diet.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  No it's not, and the high levels of lactose intolerance in much of the world back that up.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  In the same quantities we do today? And is the composition of today's factory farm milk the same as even just 50 yrs ago? Hint: The answers are no and no.
  - ars 3y ago
    They drank FAR FAR more in the past (milk consumption is way down), and the composition is the same.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      In the past when exactly? When cows were jacked up on hormones? And fed a non-grass diet that is typical of cows? There's a misunderstanding here of past vs present.
medler 3y ago
The ability to drink cow’s milk evolved relatively recently, in the past 7,500 years or so. But that ability made you so much more likely to survive and reproduce that it quickly came to dominate Europe. Obviously we don’t know what traits will be adaptive moving forward, but in the past drinking milk was incredibly advantageous.
cultofmetatron 3y ago
thats more of an argument for goat milk which is in fact much easier to digest than cow milk

p1necone 3y ago

This is a weird argument. No food is /intended/ to feed humans. Every single thing we eat is just some random bit of plant or animal that happens to be nutritious.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
That's the thing, it's not an argument. Cow's milk is for baby cows. That's biological fact. Full stop. Nothing to argue. Can human ingest it? Yes. Should they? In quantity? Well, other than Big Dairy who has marketed that idea?
- p1necone 3y ago
  Okay I'll bite. * Spinach leaves are "for" transforming sunlight into plant growth. * Rump steak is "for" moving the back leg of a cow. * Honey is "for" feeding bees. Surely on the "food not for humans <===================> food for humans" scale something that is produced explicitly to feed the young of a fairly closely related mammal is closer to the "for humans" end of the scale than most food? Please note I'm not trying to argue that that you're wrong about your classification of milk not being "for" humans, I'm trying to point out the absurdity of even trying to define food as being for or not for humans in the first place. ================================================= Also talking about "Big Dairy" in this context is a bit silly too. You could definitely argue that milk has been heavily marketed as a "healthy" food in the United States over the past few decades, and maybe considering it to be unusually healthy relative to other foods is a mistake. But trying to argue that humans shouldn't eat it at all while referring to "Big Dairy" is ridiculous - humans have been eating dairy for thousands of years, much longer than modern capitalism has even existed. ================================================= And lastly, saying "it's not an argument, it's fact" is an extremely arrogant way to dodge actually having to justify what you're saying. Don't do that.
cies 3y ago
Fruits and apes have a long relationship, that benefits both. Biologically fruit is ape food. Why would that be different for humans? Oh, we changed the world around us, but how fast is our genes in catching up with that?

ASalazarMX 3y ago

Consider this...Corn is intended to feed a baby plant. Humans are not corn. Some corns cob for humans is likely not harmful. But beyond that you're ingesting a cocktail of nutrients and hormones intend for a baby plant. Put another way, just because Big Corn has normalized doesn't mean it's a good dietary decision. Proceed at your own risk. PS. Sorry for being so snarky, but I hope you read my silly comment with an open mind, and realize how weak your argument is as of now. You need facts to back up such extraordinary statement. It even has anthropological implications.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
[flagged]
- TylerE 3y ago
  A bigger part of the corn syrup thing was basically coincidence of timing - it came out right at one the cyclical peaks of fat vilification. So products were reformulated to have less fat (and often less salt), and surprise surprise, they tasted like crap.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Cheaper === more consumption. That's basic economics. The corn subsidies drove down the price of that sweetener and in turn those (mostly unhealthy) products feel in price. *And* it became attractive to use in other products. Yes, of course. There are other factors. But that doesn't diminish the fact that tax dollars are used to make the taxpayers unhealthy.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    I should add, that cheaper corn also makes the things that eat corn cheaper. That doesn't mean those things are healthy. The power structure / status quo is based on stability. Hunger / starvation of the masses tends to bring about instability. The point is, the food system is NOT driven by health (of the masses or the environment for that matter). It's driven by Food X's ability to starve off starvation (and associated unrest). That is, just because you're eating what's been normalized doesn't mean it's ideal for your health.

chrisco255 3y ago

Humans are mammals, like cows, so biologically we share a great deal in common, including the production of milk for our young. It doesn't make sense to argue against consuming something on the basis of "what it was intended for". Nature makes no such distinctions when it comes to acquisition of energy. Fruits and vegetables are not "intended for human consumption" either, they're intended to spread the plant's seed away from other competing plants. Cooked cow muscle fibers, also known as steak or beef, are intended for movement, but they are also delicious and nutritious. Organs of ruminants and birds, such as liver, are also extremely healthy for humans to consume, but they of course were evolved with other purposes in mind. As for "big milk", well milk is an extremely dynamic food used to produce a large variety of delicious products like cheese, butter, cream, yogurt, whey protein, cake, milk chocolate, etc. Milk consumption also pre-dates modern advertising by 9000 years or so, with earliest signs of human cultivation of milk from cows dating back to the Neolithic. And to the extent that you choose some milk alternative over milk itself, are you just falling for the Big Almond or Big Soy industry's alternative propaganda?

wil421 3y ago

Humans eat so many different plants and animals that are not from Africa. Everything has hormones and soy can cause issues for some people because it has phytoestrogen.

ars 3y ago

What's with the "Big Milk" business? People have been drinking milk and eating cheese for thousands of years. It's a normal part of the human diet.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
No it's not, and the high levels of lactose intolerance in much of the world back that up.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
In the same quantities we do today? And is the composition of today's factory farm milk the same as even just 50 yrs ago? Hint: The answers are no and no.
- ars 3y ago
  They drank FAR FAR more in the past (milk consumption is way down), and the composition is the same.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    In the past when exactly? When cows were jacked up on hormones? And fed a non-grass diet that is typical of cows? There's a misunderstanding here of past vs present.

medler 3y ago

The ability to drink cow’s milk evolved relatively recently, in the past 7,500 years or so. But that ability made you so much more likely to survive and reproduce that it quickly came to dominate Europe. Obviously we don’t know what traits will be adaptive moving forward, but in the past drinking milk was incredibly advantageous.

cultofmetatron 3y ago

thats more of an argument for goat milk which is in fact much easier to digest than cow milk