No doubt some of you will think I am being oversensitive with this concern, but if you hear me out, you may come to agree with me that this is a legitimate concern, especially considering the crusade against ignorance presumably being waged by Mr. Cecil Adams.
In the fart column, Cecil makes mention to a “lactase deficiency,” more commonly known as “lactose intolerance.” Lactase is the enzyme which breaks down lactose, which is milk sugar. Lactase is produced in the digestive system of infant mammals. In a minority of human beings, lactase production continues into adulthood. Lactose tolerance is more common in certain groups of human beings, particularly North Europeans and a few pastoralist tribes in Africa. A majority of “whites” are lactose tolerant, while the rest of the world is overwhelmingly lactose intolerant, for the simple fact that lactose intolerance is normal, at least in the sense that it is characteristic of most human beings and the rest of the mammal world. See this link.
The phrase “lactase deficiency” is pretty well known to be an ignorant one among those of us familiar with the actual global and evolutionary context of this biological feature.
The phrase could probably be traced to certain cultural biases, such as a general Eurocentric, white-centric view of the world, where whatever characterizes “white people” is “normal” and any deviations from this imagined norm is identified as a “deficiency” or “disease” or what have you. Also, it can be an U.S.-centric bias, where milk consumption is seen as normal, since the large “white” population is able to consume it, and other ethnic groups who are lactose intolerant are therefore “deficient.”
To further point out the absurdity of talking about a lactase deficiency, it would be more appropriate to say that whites suffer from a “melanin deficiency” since it is not characteristic of most of the world’s population, and it can result in harmful effects. (sunburn)
The evolutionary context is, of course, that milk is baby food. So any group where the adults snarfed all the kids’ sustenance (i.e., were lactose tolerant) didn’t tend to leave many offspring.
Good point and good post, ** joyofdiscord**.
Welcome to the Straight Dope!
One might point out, though, that Cecil’s primary audience is in the United States, where a majority of people are either naturally lactose tolerant, or take supplements to render them tolerant. Among Cecil’s readers, it is reasonable to assume that lactose tolerance (natural or medicated) is the norm, and untreated lactose intolerance is atypical.
Chronos, you have just excellently described the problem. Basically, your analysis illustrates the way that that phrase reinforces the ignorance of the actual nature of the human race which has been generally fostered by the U.S. superiority complex. Cecil’s columns, if truly intended to combat ignorance, should not use its readership as a representative sample of humanity as a whole, which is a not-too-absurd extrapolation of the idea you present. (I know you aren’t promoting the idea, merely presenting it as a possible objection, so don’t take it personally.)
Again, I’m sorry if this is being oversensitive, but to me, having had this particular sentiment brought to my attention, having never quite thought about it before, I tend to find the phrase pretty offensive. It’s akin to classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Greetings and blessings, Joyofdiscord,
I’m a yank with northern European bloodlines. I got along fine with lactose until I was 35 or so, and then my lactase ran out. Now I have to take little pills when I eat something with milk, cream, or cheese in it. It’s an inconvenience. To me, it’s lactase deficiency; it’s a problem.
Now, because I’m a pale guy with Celtic/Anglo-Saxon genetic stuff, my skin doesn’t handle sunlight very well. If I’m in a situation where I’m in the sun most of the day, I’ll burn. A whole bottle of sunblock won’t stop it. Later on, the dermatologist will know me really well. He’ll pay for his kid’s lab fees from the lesions he lases from my skin. Melanin deficiency, that’s what. It’s a pain in the neck, and it will cost me a lot more than those bottles of lactase pills.
If you’re wondering where I’m going with all that, well, I’ve kinda lost track myself. I don’t think I was trying to nail Joyofdiscord to the wall, but it seemed like I had a point to make. Maybe it will come to me later. Thank you for your patience.
I think I understand your point in that if the absense of some biological feature causes a problem for the individual, then that individual then suffers from a “deficiency.” Along that line, it might be legitimate to claim that the milk-drinking lactose intolerants blasting out caustic farts have a “deficiency” because their biology can’t handle what they are putting in their mouth. Of course, to me at least, it seems more reasonable to regard this as an overdose of lactose, since the biology is all well and good and normal, in line with the majority of the human race, except when forced to deal with the cultural trait of milk drinking.
To come up with a fairly ridiculous parable, imagine a guy decides to let a whole bunch of mice loose in his house. Then, perplexed, complains that he is seriously lacking cats. Yeah, the cats would take care of the mice. Yeah, he needs them in a way. Yeah, he would be better off if he had them. But the main problem isn’t not having cats, it’s fact he let frigging mice loose in his house!
(Not saying dairy consumption is a similarly boneheaded thing to do or anything like that. It is just the real issue at hand.)
shrug As you can probably tell by the increasing ratio of stupid drivel to actual content, I’m getting a little drowsy. No posts for me tonight.
Part one: We humans are inventive creatures, always tinkering. We colonized sheep, then killed off the predators, so the rodents flourished. We colonized dogs and cats. Examples abound of things we’ve done for our comfort or amusement, and the side effects they brought. Your original point about “deficiency” is well taken. I feel that you’ve invested too much anger in it, though. And here I am, dithering away on the same point, when I should be eating breakfast.
Part two: A complete change of subject; your screen name, joyofdiscord, is a fine one. My mental image is of St. Joyofdiscord, the patron saint of punk rock and political campaigns. 
Points well taken, although I’m afraid I’ve perhaps been a little overzealous if you read it as anger. I don’t feel at all angry about the subject, just feel like it is worth giving a thought to a concept that implies that white people are, for the most part, whole and complete in this area, and billions of Africans and Asians and pretty much everyone else in the world are deficient. I guess I’ll pretty much drop it, although I am curious as to what Cecil might have to say about the subject.
Here’s the way I see it: There are, in the world, some people who have significant amounts of lactase as adults, and there are some people who do not. If we want to divide the world into two categories on that basis (as, for instance, if we want to distinguish the folks who are likely to produce foul emissions after drinking milk), then we need names for those two categories. It seems to me that “lactase deficient” is a perfectly valid label for the latter category. What would you propose instead?
Your point is well-taken, though, that people ought to be aware of this situation. The fact that the majority of Americans share some characteristic doesn’t justify us being blind to the rest of the world.
I think the complaint is that by labeling a condition a “deficiency” one is defining those with lactase as “normal” and the lack of lactase as being abnormal. But the point seems to be that if we want to define a normal, it would be the sans lactase. Thus the minority are those with lactase abundancy.
Hmmm, or perhaps we could use the already-existing and better known terms “lactose intolerant” and “lactose tolerant.” “Tolerant,” to me seems to imply that lactose is something that generally should cause problems (which it does, when considering the whole of the human race), but that some can tolerate it. Sure, “lactose intolerant” still sounds a bit disparaging, but it is more of a statement of fact than a value judgment, which defining a “deficiency” essentially is.