Leaving aside all the "creepy" "gross" visceral reactions

[Greensleeves]

"Nutritionally, it makes no sense that breastmilk as a dietary component can be considered redundant beyond a certain (again, arbitrary) age, yet cow's milk is seen as extremely beneficial, and even 'necessary' to a healthy diet."

someone posted this on the other thread and it seems to me to encapsulate something which would be very hard to argue against in a rational way

Could we discuss this statement, away from all the emotional "creepy" stuff?

Does anyone think that cows' milk is better for children?

.

Cows milk better for children than breastmilk?

No, of course not. Breastmilk is designed (well, evolved) for young humans. Cows milk is designed for young cows. Obviously, breast milk will be better for children.

I think the origin was that milk was seen as beneficial. But breast milk generally isn't available after infancy (especially if the mother has further children). And it would definitely be difficult for schools to serve at break time . So cow's milk has become the accepted substitute - so accepted, in fact, that mothers who continue to feed their children breastmilk beyond infancy are now seen as "weird".

So if you give your child a balanced diet, is milk better than say water?

No. Humans have only recently developed the capability to digest lactose after about 4 or 5 years old. We are unusual mammals in that respect and it's why lactose intolerance is so common.

Cow's milk is fine but not necessary unless they're not getting enough fat and calcium from other sources.

Organic cattle still pick up environmental contaminants from grass and feed, unless they are raised in a clean room. There's no way that even the most pampered dairy cow could make milk that is better for a baby than that baby's own mother (or any woman, for that matter).

We think milk is healthy because of marketing, not any inherently superior nutritional qualities. That goes for formula too.

As mammals, we make milk, like cows, bats, anteaters and giraffes. It's no more creepy or weird to do this than it is to grow a baby in our uterus, sustained by a placenta.

Greensleeves - I think the difficulty lies in the fact that no one ever lives, and eats, and drinks, in a solely nutritional way. Not even a baby or a small child.

Anything eaten or drunk is done in some sort of social, psychological, cultural and emotional context - yes, even someone living alone in a cave would have memories and experiences of doing something different.

Even someone being tube fed in hospital, even if not conscious, is being given something that's been decided (by another human being) is appropriate culturally as well as nutritionally.

So while we can look at cows milk and weigh it up against breastmilk and find it lacking at any stage (because it has no immune properties, perhaps, or because it lacks any human-specific components) you would only ever be looking at half the story anyway. The social, cultural and relationship factors are not there.