Why dairy is demonized: lactose intolerance and processing

20 years of daily milk: why it's now considered harmful

A glass of milk with Colacao, one or two yogurts, and some cheese every day for over twenty years. Those who maintain this routine report no health problems and fail to understand the push to remove dairy from diets. The question isn't rhetorical: if there's no evident harm for those who tolerate it, where does the "bad food" label come from?

Why is dairy considered bad?

Reasons cluster into four fronts, none conclusive alone. There are nutritional, ethical (animal welfare and continuous extraction), cultural, and clinical arguments—the latter being the only measurable one, based on intolerances and allergies. Veganism has also boosted this trend, turning milk avoidance into both an identity marker and a dietary choice.

Suspicion shifts targets seasonally. First flour, then fats, eggs, potatoes, or mercury in fish. It goes in waves. Dairy entered this rotation of demonized foods without new evidence justifying it.

A repeated argument: no species drinks milk after infancy, nor another species' milk. The counterargument is simple: humans don't cook fabada, slice Iberian ham, or process bacalao al pilpil naturally either. Appealing to nature as the sole judge of human menus is selective at best.

Lactose intolerance: the only solid argument

Here, chemistry applies. Lactose is a sugar made of galactose and glucose molecules. Digesting it requires lactase, an enzyme abundant in childhood but declining with age. When it disappears, milk causes discomfort. Adult lactase persistence is an adaptation in pastoral populations, more common in Europe than Asia.

By this logic, tolerance would be the statistical exception and intolerance the norm. But that doesn't make milk poison; it makes it suitable for some and problematic for others. Defenders argue the mistake is generalizing: declaring something bad for all when it's only bad for few. Also, don't confuse intolerance with allergy, which is different; forum threads recall near-fatal allergic reactions.

Raw, pasteurized, and UHT milk: processing changes everything

Carton milk stored for months differs greatly from fresh cow's milk. Fresh field milk, simply boiled, digests well even for those who can't tolerate UHT, according to testers. They argue heat destroys enzymes and properties, making it less a living food and more a burden than a nutrient.

It's not just about enzymes. Those who taste low-pasteurized fresh milk with over 4% fat and cream describe experiences hard to replicate in Spanish supermarkets. Goat and sheep milk are available but have strong flavors; their derivatives, especially cheese, bridge the gap. Another test is kefir: some maintain cultures for seven years using supermarket milk, but not all brands work. Certain UHT milks won't start fermentation.

Animal welfare and quality: from barn to shelf

The ethical front has an industrial version: farms with continuous extraction, recurring udder infections, and antibiotic treatments ending up in products. These claims circulate among critics of the industrial model, pointing to final product quality, not just consumer sarracena. Buying from local producers—within a few kilometers—often leads to easier digestion, though these are personal impressions without cited backing.

The core issue is where to draw the line. Debating milk as a category differs from debating supermarket milk processed for long shelf life over other virtues. Even defenders agree here.

Plant-based drinks and horchata: alternatives not for everyone

The anti-dairy offensive comes with growing substitutes: soy, oat, almond, tofu. Here, taste is key, and taste isn't debated. Some try plant-based and sheep milk, aren't convinced, and return to cow's milk without fuss.

Surprise comes with horchata. Chufa drink, even light supermarket versions, ranks ahead of milk in home comparisons, with the caveat that regular horchata tastes better for those not watching weight or glucose. It's ironic: a traditional Spanish alternative competing with the beverage the dairy industry has sold as irreplaceable for a century.

Maasai, milk sugar, and skimmed milk

A popular example claims an African population basing its diet on dairy, meat, and blood suffers obesity, high cholesterol, and cardiovascular issues. This comparison relies on a popular article mixing genetics, environment, and lifestyle. A nearly exclusive animal diet prevents isolating milk's effect.

More debatable yet useful is the product's nutritional profile: sugar and fat designed to fatten calves. Lactose is sugar, cream is fat, proteins are the third pillar. Hence, some suggest sticking to derivatives—unsweetened yogurt, cheese, cream—and leaving liquid milk for those who tolerate it. Skimmed milk fares poorly too; some call it an aberration.

Removing dairy for tolerators lacks clinical defense; imposing it on non-tolerators does too. Between extremes, industry sells more processed products while consumers face fewer certainties. How much of the war on milk is health, and how much market?