Originally Posted by jeminijad
Also, at the risk of sounding like an anti everything loon (which I kind of am,) there is little impetus for any large corporation or govt to investigate an issue that the FDA so soundly denies exists (any superiority of raw or unhomo milk over factory stuff.)
Well, the link you posted discusses a number of studies that were targeted towards investigating the xanthine oxidase thing and says that most of the results were not supportive. Down towards the end of the page they say,
"The fact that Oster's theory has been disproven does not mean that the homogenization process is benign."
Then they talk about liposome reconstitution and allergenicity. Which as I said is an interesting point.
Sorry to sound so argumentative.
I am a little anal-retentive about evidence bases.
Originally Posted by mamadelbosque
I have to roll my eyes at the 'no other animal drinks milk for life!' comments... I mean, really, no other animal eats foods from around the world either - people certainly didn't evolve eating blueberries, strawberries, apples, beef or dozens of other things either, but that doesn't mean they aren't healthy.
ITA with this. Actually one of the things that made humans so devastatingly successful as a species is that we are so incredibly adaptable to a wide variety of environments and foods. We're the most completely omnivorous species on the planet.
I agree that adults don't *need* milk but unless they are specifically allergic or unable to digest it, I don't think that evolutionary arguments are a good reason to avoid it.