I’m sure this could be done by drawing from old experiments, or by non-direct testing, if it isn’t already done.

With regards to the cats, it is a little odd that the 1st generation study animals, who were either ex-laboratory cats, or shelter-cats (or possibly both? Unfortunately I don’t have access to the primary sources, but as you do, you’ll know whether my quibble is relevant), were so widely lactose tollerant, in the first place. Further generations would likely be of reasonable tollerance, at least from my understanding of the lactose conditioning in cats. The large numbers involved would presumably help filter out such intollerant individuals early on (as well as aid in preventing any laboratory test-linked factors from skewing the results), so they wouldn’t necessarily be a problem.

(If the cats were all laboratory animals, then it is quite likely they’d have had a homogeneous feed programme, unless it was testing on diet.. but I’m fairly sure it would have been something Pottenger would have prevented, or you’d have checked, given your extensive study of the experiments – apologies for not having read the original material, I suspect the information is there, and I will look into it when possible. Please take any points I make as being made from this perspective; if anything, they serve as a form of notes in a pertinent place, in order to remind me what to check once I do have time and access to the information).

Looking at it from an angle of assuming a reduced capacity for lactose tollerance, the original study would leave questions as to whether the key factor in unpastuerised milk was either aiding digestion of milk (which is a concept I have seen referenced), or it was enabling a more efficient usage of the content of the meat portion of the diet (something which, could be constreud as linking to the meat-based study, taking it from the angle that the cooked meat lacked the other component that enables this, but which can work individually for partial digestion). The rulling out of the latter as a factor points to the awareness of, and countermeasures to, lactose tollerance in cats; or it could point to more specialised experiments as part of the sub-groups mentioned.

Without having read the details, it is hard to tell which the (approximately) 900 cats figure refers to (unsure if it is part of the quote or not). Given the number of generations, and the limited time of the study, it would be useful to know the numbers in each group, and whether a set number for each generation was required to draw comparative data from.

_______

With regards the wording:

Indeed, the ambiguity is great, as always seems to be the case. I am not at all familiar with U.S. law, so am ignorant as to whether other interpretations would be permitted, legally, but in the U.K., at least, I can see multiple ways that companies would be able to defend their use of such wording.

For example (admitedly this may depend on surrounding context):
With your “Examine these two statements: 1) “Numerous studies of the relative nutritional merits of raw and pasteurized milk have been conducted in animals and humans, and no differences were detectable.” 2) “Numerous studies of the relative nutritional merits of raw and pasteurized milk have been conducted in animals and humans, and vast differences were detectable.””

One could argue that it doesn’t claim with whichever wording, that the study indicates anything individually negative or positive about either type of milk – merely that no differences were detectable between the studies (findings), by the person or body issuing the statement/that studies used different (benal, and irrelevant) factors. Which, given the degree of subjectivity which is attached to discerning differences, could be strung out indefinitely.

Alternatively, they could take issue that they have not claimed the conlusions made by such sudies were so, nor that their own conclusions were.

Ultimately it would come down to how good their legal representatives were at making it stick, without the statements or interpreations being deemed fraudulent, and without exciting those presiding.

Given how easy it is for them to put a spin on any data, or word arround it, while concealing full access, I wouldn’t be supprised if their own researchers are funded to approach things neutrally. This would explain their trend over the last 20 Years or so (possibly longer, this is just inferred from memory, and I’ve not been around long enough to go further) for introducing and incrrasing their general ranges of products which are selectively treated/treated then having selected cultures and components re-added. Without having done research, they’d not be able to capitalise upon knowledge and monopolise it for gain.

Not having a proper comparison, I can’t tell the differences between how much such companies practice, but I do know that comparisons between regulations in the E.U. and U.S. regulations for various food products is usually one where companies on the back foot, legally, tend to laud the U.S. systems, when interviewed. This is no doubt more circumstance-lead, than representitive, due to there being no defence in wrong, or much reason in right, to bring things up if they were the other way round; what’s more, there are likely equivelent cases in the opposite direction.

In the U.K., at least (and in the Nederlands, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Italy, Greece, Estonia and Portugal, from less-comprehensive personal experience and data related to the Slow Foods programme, and similar), there seems to have been a majority leaning towards organic and natural-state produce (though not always expressed through purchasing by all, due to cost differences) for the last 15 Years, at least, with a strong advocation for it for a long time before that. This leads me to believe that the regulations are likely reflective of this, in general; and from comments made by students from the U.S. studying here, there is much less of a movement for such things there – at least it must be in a way that a good portion can remain unaware of.

Thank you for maintaining this article, as it has given me a few things to persue, during free, inquisitive moments.

I’m sorry for the rambling, and likely incoherrant, nature of this post; it is, in truth, more of a notation of things I am lacking in, and need to research, than a comment. I hope that having prompted somone to investigate and persue the topic more than they otherwise would (I don’t study/work in related fields, but pretty much everything is of interest – at least this is something more relevant than most), is enough to counter any annoyances caused by my current ignorance.