I've read the article, and to say the least I really don't have a good opinion of Funk. His thesis is ill researched, full of logical errors, based primarily on folk-lore, and has religious overtones. What he's written there, stripped of the hype, could be condensed into 'be a vegan'. I've tried that approach for a year and suffered very bad health effects from it.
For just one example from what you quoted above ~ modern dairy cows are the result of centuries of breeding, the milk is 'designed' for our consumption - not for a calf. Calves are very rarely fed cow's milk, and when that is done, those are free range beef cattle ~ a completely different animal. Nature's 'design' was the aurox. To object to drinking milk based on the number and amount of hormones contained there-in is completely understandable, but even on that count one can buy milk and dairy products readily that is free from them.
I gave thought at one point of pointing out where Funk had made grave errors in his thesis, but decided it might have been too controversial. I really am not interested in disproving it, but it really tears at me to see blatant errors going uncorrected. If a person wishes to try a dietary approach, I'm all for it. But they really need to have good information. Too much of what is popularly considered 'healthy eating' really isn't healthy.
Milk is not the 'devil' that it's made out to be. I concur that it's been marketed far too heavily, and it's subsidy still irritates me. But those are not reasons for not including milk and dairy in one's diet, unless one bases one's diet on politics.
Last edited by DanielEW; 09-25-2008 at 04:51 PM.
Not only can't the republican's drive, but they think pedestrians are worth points!
Bookmarks