Humans are not designed to drink cows milk

Cows milk is full of female hormones and antibiotics which make the cows produce more milk and the antibiotics is to prevent them getting diseases due to forced large amounts of milk to be produced, then we drink the dam stuff and wonder why our men get male-boobs, prostrate cancer. Little boys being born with 'willy' deformaties and a general increase in cancer everywhere. If you have to animal milk at least go organic.

As a matter of fact, antibiotic residue is forbidden in both organic and non-organic milk. The milk needs to be discarded for several days after the last antibiotic treatment (specific period depends on which antibiotic). When the milk truck picks up at each farm, the driver will take a sample from the bulk tank. At the end of his route, the milk on his truck is tested. If there is detectable antibiotic residue, the entire truck is dumped. The sample from each farm is tested, and the farm which included the offending milk is billed for the value of the dumped milk.

As for hormones, more and more farmers are stopping using them because of how much it cuts off the productive lifetime of the cow, and many brands are hormone-free.

Animals, just like people, need antibiotics and vaccines. I honestly think it's cruelty to hold this kind of treatment to stay "organic." I heard a story from an organic farmer that she let half of her chickens die from pneumonia because they are antibiotic free, free range chickens. That is ridiculous to just let animals suffer and die to be organic. Every shot I have ever given to my livestock has on the label how long the hold is for milk and meat is. I never immorally sell milk or meat within the hold time after a shot is given. Conversations about this topic make me angry, because people have no idea what they are talking about.

Either your friend is crazy or you misunderstood. Chickens that die of disease may not be sold into the food chain. Giving antibiotics to cure disease can still be sold as "antibiotic free" though not as "organic". It's the use of antibiotics on healthy animals as precaution to prevent disease that is most complained about.

That's why I only drink almond milk. It has fixed all my flatulence problems. Give it a try!

While I agree 100%, we also weren't meant to consume almonds in the quantities necessary to make almond "milk". Anything in moderation is most likely better than anything in excess. It's probably unnecessary for most people to consume any liquid calories past infancy. Water should be it.

Almond milk is for baby almonds!

Milking cattle does not cause pain and death. More bunny-hugger nonsense.

Never ever? No bad practice milking farms out there anywhere?

In addition to bad practice (which does happen), it also does (to be strictly honest) causes the death of all the male calves, who cannot really be kept around as pets.

I'm okay with that. I eat meat. But it certainly does involve death, just as keeping egg-laying chickens involves the death of almost all male chicks of egg-producing strains.

So why is there still lactose intolerance among our society?

All mammals are milk drinkers at birth. It comes with being a mammal. Humans drink milk at birth, always have. But, as pointed out repeatedly in the thread, in nature after infancy there's little cause to continue production of the enzyme that digests milk because milk was not readily available for most mammals beyond infancy. . (Note: Lactose intolerance is neither an allergy nor an immune response. Lactose intolerance is due to the amount of the enzyme that you produce. If your lactose (milk sugar) intake exceeds how much of the milk-digesting enzyme that you produce, you only become 'intolerant' at the point where you take in more milk sugar than you have enzymes to digest. It's a gradation, more than an all-or-nothing).

A beneficial mutation took place that allowed humans continue to produce the enzyme to digest lactose beyond infancy, but it's only a beneficial mutation if it provides a benefit.

Domestic cows came from an extinct breed of wild cow called an aurochs that lived in North Africa and Europe. It's probably not entirely accidental that the populations with the highest prevalence of the lactase-persistant mutation for cows milk are the populations that could benefit from the available food source and it aid in their passing on their genes. (And in Northern Europe, where due to weather and lattitude there was a liklihood of vitamin D difficiency, it was a good souce of supplemental vitamin D, the presence of which helped to increase the liklihood of fertility and live births. There was less evolutionary pressure to do so in areas with higher UV levels such as South Africa or the southern parts of the Americas where adequate vitamin D could be obtained from the sunlight (or for the Innuit who got adequate Vitamin D from whale and seal blubber). It being a beneficial mutation for the people with the aurochs, allowing them to exploit a local food source and increase reproduction, the lactase-persistant mutation lived on in generations of offspring (and in the domestication of milking animals such as cows and goats).

Conversely, the aurochs did not exist in North or South America (or Austrailia or sub-Saharan Africa or Polynesia, etc.). Thus there were no cows until post Columbian exchange (so we're talking 500 years or less). For those populations, there would have been no evolutionary benefit even if the adaptation had occured because there were no cows (or goats for that matter) for milk production (and where due to UV levels, there was no pressing need for supplemental D, except for the natives in the North who got supplemental vitamin D from whales and seals).

If you look at the populations with high percentages of lactase persistance, it coincides not so accidentally with populations where it would have been of benefit to be tolerant of cows milk (therefore, lactase persistance is quite common in populations of Northern European descent and quite rare in Native American populations.)

Wow really? Guilt trip? The pictures are reality for many animals out there and it's because of people who don't wish to be "Guilt tripped" that the industry will never change. Many of us who speak up against animal cruelty aren't vegan or even vegetarian but people should make more conscious and ethical choices of where they purchase animal products and stop supporting commercial horrid factory farming. How sad and judgmental you're comment was.

While I am for animal rights, it is going to be hard pressed to get everyone to buy only from range free/cage free/etc... Especially when it comes to beef, pork, etc.. And the main reason is the price. The difference on free-range/cage free meat/milk/dairy is crazy high here. Chicken and eggs aren't so bad and I myself try to buy cage-free or range-free when I can afford it.

It is a cycle that won't end, honestly. All anyone can do is voice for better care of the animals. There isn't enough range land in the U.S. to logically raise enough free range to support the ideas some people propose, which is another reason why those types of meats are so expensive.

All this thread is doing is making me want to go get a nice tall glass of milk (hormone and antibiotic free btw) and a large steak...

nom nom nom!

I've tried a number of the different 'milks' out there and while I like them, I find them awfully sweet, so I'm going to stick to my cow's milk, thank you very much.

Though I'm pretty certain that years of generations drinking cow's milk has made it okay for us to have it.

So why is there still lactose intolerance among our society? All humans are lactose intolerant, just some people are more "intolerant" then others. I'm sorry, but i'm not drinking a steroid & hormone laced milk that makes a calf grow to 900lbs in a few months.

It's called a growing phase/cycle..........what really puts on the beef is good old grain and when they reach over 2000lbs it's steak time.

Milking cattle does not cause pain and death. More bunny-hugger nonsense.

Never ever? No bad practice milking farms out there anywhere?

In addition to bad practice (which does happen), it also does (to be strictly honest) causes the death of all the male calves, who cannot really be kept around as pets.

I'm okay with that. I eat meat. But it certainly does involve death, just as keeping egg-laying chickens involves the death of almost all male chicks of egg-producing strains.

LMAO - this just goes to show how little society knows but talks like they are experts. Yes, male calves are killed but first they are castrated and then raised to about a 1,000 to 1200lbs. Then sent to the pack plant where they eventually end up on my plate.

THANKYOU for this. I'm a veggie but am toying with the idea of becoming vegan. This helps.

you know if nobody bought meat or milk, that cow would have never been born, right? or would be meat instead of milk

If the cow was never born, she wouldn't suffer. You can't justify the industry like that.


I haven't consumed meat or dairy in 12 years. I see where meat is OK for most of us, but in general, humans eat (and waste) too much of it.

We are the only species that willingly drinks milk from another species and after infancy.

Soy milk, in moderation, is a great alternative. High protein, low cholesterol. Just get it unsweetened.

Funny. I haven't had a banana in 15 years.