Milk is somewhat healthy, but not absolutely necessary.

The argument

The claim here is a qualified one, and the qualification is what does the work. Milk does contain nutrients the body genuinely needs and genuinely benefits from, calcium and vitamin D among them, so on this view the case against milk as simply unhealthy overstates itself. Milk in moderation can be a perfectly good way of obtaining those nutrients, and for someone whose diet delivers them by no other route it may be a useful one. What the argument denies is the stronger claim that milk is necessary. Necessity would mean that the nutrients in question could not be had without it, and they can. Calcium is available from foods such as beans, almonds and kale. Vitamin D can be received simply through exposure to sunlight, without any dietary source at all. Once these substitutes are on the table, milk becomes one option among several rather than a requirement, and its nutritional contribution can no longer be used to argue that everyone ought to drink it. The comparison between those options is what settles the matter. Milk carries its nutrients alongside a high fat content, and the contention is that the other routes often do not impose the same cost; sunlight in particular supplies vitamin D with no dietary cost whatever. So for many people the same nutritional benefit is available in a healthier form elsewhere, and choosing milk means accepting a drawback they need not accept. The conclusion is therefore conditional rather than general. Milk is neither a health food to be recommended to everyone nor a harm to be avoided by everyone: it can be healthy in certain cases, taken in moderation and by those for whom it is a convenient source of nutrients they would otherwise lack, while for others the alternatives are often the healthier choice.

Premises

Counter-arguments

-It is a lot more difficult to get nutrients from foods besides milk, because they are much lower in content. -Milk’s nutrients outweigh the negative effects of its fat content.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This holds as far as it goes, though the vitamin D is largely present because milk is fortified in many countries rather than because it is naturally rich in it — a distinction that matters to an argument about what milk itself supplies. [Rejecting P2] The substitutes are not equivalent, which is the counter's point in outline. Calcium absorption varies substantially by source, being high from kale and low from spinach and some legumes because of oxalate and phytate content, so equal quantities on a label do not deliver equal amounts to the body. Sunlight synthesis likewise depends on latitude, season, skin tone, age and sun protection, and is unreliable through winter across much of the temperate world. [Rejecting P3] The fat premise does not hold as stated, since milk is sold across a range of fat contents and the skimmed and semi-skimmed versions retain the calcium and the fortification; dietary guidance has also moved away from treating dairy fat as straightforwardly harmful. The conclusion is oddly weak for the premises, too: showing that milk is one good source among several supports the claim that milk is healthy rather than the hedged position it is filed under. The real case for the hedge would rest on lactose malabsorption, which is the majority condition worldwide and goes unmentioned.