feed the starving, two trends are prevalent. First, milk is not being consumed because some find it unpalatable, while others do not drink it because the symptoms of LI are too much to endure. Second, because the percentage of LI is high among those consuming milk products, nutrition gained from milk product consumption by this group is minimal. For both these reasons, some of the developed world's efforts to nourish the hungry are being wasted. Americans as a whole are fortunate with respect to LI. The percentage of the U.S. population afflicted is estimated to be about 15% or about 30+ million people (Englert and Guillory 903). The remainder of the world, however, has a much higher incidence of LI. Non-European countries are especially affected, with Asian and African countries having the highest affliction rates (60-100%).1 How can these differences of LI among populations be explained? The prevailing theory is that genetics is the strongest indicator (Harrison 820, McCraken 481). Anthropologists have studied the world's populations with respect to LI, and have concluded that genetics is the best predictor. People with northern European ancestries have the lowest LI rate (0-30%), while almost all other races have high LI rates (60-100%). It does not matter where people were born, where they currently live, or even their childhood or adulthood diets. Only their genetic background with respect to northern Europe descent affects their likelihood of being lactose intolerant. A good example of this is found in the U.S. Even though the U.S. has a comparatively low lactose intolerant population by percentage, American Indians are close to 100% lactose intolerant (Johnson et al. 385). There is much speculation as to why genetics plays such an important role in LI, but the best theory seems to be natural selection (McCraken 496). Dairying (the raising and milking of animals for food) first appeared in northern Europe. It is speculated that du...
