Clarified Purple Cow Punch

This year, continuing the theme from the Taste of Science, the Georgia Tech STEMcomm team decided to host a Sober Science Speakeasy, a party all about the science of drinks. While looking around for something to prepare, the concept of “clear milk” was brought up, and I was intrigued. Clear milk? That’s practically oxymoronic. And yet, these drinks, called “clarified cocktails” or “milk punches”,  added milk to end up with clear, colorless products. Naturally, we had to investigate and try for ourselves. This is what we learned:

The Science:

Milk, looking decidedly not clear, due to the Tyndall effect.

Milk is a colloid, with fat and proteins suspended in the aqueous solution. Since these are fairly evenly distributed, they usually scatter the light beam around in all directions in the Tyndall effect, making the liquid appear white and opaque.    Proteins in the milk, particularly caseins, repel each other at the normal pH of milk, which is what maintains that even distribution throughout. This is because the isoelectric point of casein, or the point at which it it is electrically neutral (uncharged) is around 4.6, but milk’s normal pH is closer to 6.6. The casein proteins therefore have a negative charge that makes them repel one another and spread out as far apart as possible.

When pH of milk is lowered however, by adding acid, the casein proteins will lose their negative charge, and stop repelling one another. This, along with the protein degradation, or unfolding of their shape, at the lower pH, causes many of them to clump together in solid blobs we call “curds”. They will separate out to the bottom, and the liquid left behind is called the “whey”. But these proteins don’t just separate from the rest of the drink- they take compounds with them, including much of the color! The proteins bind to molecules from the drink, especially polyphenols, which are associated with bitter/astringent tastes, like tannins in black tea or red wine.

Therefore, when you strain out the curds, you also remove compounds bound to the caseins. This “clarifies” the drink, stripping away most of its original color, and giving it a less harsh flavor. Some also claim that the addition of the remaining milk whey also gives the drinks a sliker texture, making them even more desirable.

The Drinks

This property of milk has been used to make clarified cocktails for many years, with the first written recipe dating all the way back to 1711. Even our favorite kite-flying founding father, Benjamin Franklin, was a fan, recording his own recipe for brandy-filled milk punch in 1763. You can still see the original document online in the Massachusetts Historical Society archives: https://www.masshist.org/database/263.

A resident “mad scientist” with the original base, sans milk.

In our case, we went for a non-alcoholic version, with a base of black tea, grape juice, lemon juice, and of course, milk.

This concoction, lovely nicknamed “clarified purple cow punch” or CPCP, was initially dark reddish-purple, and while sweet, was also tad bitter from the black tea flavoring. The addition of the juice to milk resulted in a (rather unappetizing) mixture of curdled milk and juice in a clumpy, brown…milkshake? Ick.

At that stage, I was pretty doubtful that this was going to work. With a bit of patience, however, and several rounds of straining through cheese clothes and coffee filters, we ultimately ended up with a pale pink, ultra-sweet drink that proved pretty popular. There was no hint of milk flavoring or bitter taste, and all together, CPCP was a surprising success.

If you want to try making clear drinks yourself, all you need is some juice mix, an acid, and milk- and a lot of time to sit and watch the straining process. Make sure to add the acid slowly to the milk, and not the other way around, to ensure the proteins have time to bind to the polyphenols before curdling, and you’ll be all set to impress with your friends with this magically clear milk.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.