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" feed

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.