Talk:A2 milk

POV

I believe the A2 corporation is only active in New Zealand. A2 milk is not a brand (although in New Zealand it may be). A1 and A2 are genetic variants. If I have a backyard cow it is either A1/A1, A1/A2, or A2/A2; if the last, then my milk is A2 although it is my own and not purchased under some brand name.

The primary focus of the article should be on the genetic difference and its effects, which is of interest to everyone who consumes milk anywhere in the world; not on the trademark rights of a company operating in a limited area.

The research is complicated because little data is available for milk consumption segregated by milk type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianiline (talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree with this. Upon googling more on this there's a book on the subject - Devil in the Milk, which states - "Milk that contains A1 beta-casein is commonly known as A1 milk, whereas milk that does not is called A2. Originally all milk was A2 until a mutation affecting some European cattle occurred some thousands of years ago. Herds in much of Asia, Africa and parts of southern Europe remain naturally high in A2 cows. A2 milk from selected cows is now marketed in much of Australia, and in parts of the USA and New Zealand." So the focus of this article should definitely shift to genetic differences and its effects. Also suggest to rename article to 'A1/A2 milk'. --Aghors (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This article belongs under milk/health/controversies and should act as a flag or warning that A2 is simply a branded genetic subset of milk which is getting a major marketing push by corporates with a vested interest in brand take-up. Of interest is precisely that market share increase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.113.185 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to be advertising or propaganda on behalf of the A2 Corporation, creators of this product, A2 milk. Also, the facts in the article are contentious, for example see [1]. I think that unless this page can have informative, NPOV content about this product, it should be deleted as advertising. See also A1 (milk) Thejesterx 14:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I created the article after reading about it myself, and found a fair few articles about it strewn over the web. Feel free to change it to whatever you feel is non-biased. Perhaps only referencing the NZFSA reviews would remove bias?

64.39.127.214 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think what made me feel this wasn't NPOV enough when I read it is that it doesn't mention enough that A2 milk is a product (not really a type of milk), and that the research and benefits of it are contentious. If I get a moment, I'll read more of those external links you gave, and see if I can expand it a bit. You ever tried the stuff? - Thejesterx 18:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't tried it yet as they don't seem to sell it in North America (as far as I can see). I find it an intersting possible health issue worth investigating further. Do you write many articles? This was actually my first, along with the short A1 (milk) stub I wrote, which likely needs improving upon as well. Perhaps including this article into something else like "Negative_health_effects_of_milk" (which I dont even know if it exists) would be a better course of action?

64.39.127.242 21:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I think this topic does deserve its own article, but if theres some article relating to the negative health effects of milk, it should should definitely link to this one. To make this article more NPOV I think it should -

1. Emphasise the fact that this is a product, developed by the A2 Corporation, and therefore much of the information about it should be considered advertising and treated skeptically
2. Talk about how the benefits of A2 milk are not proven, for example as talked about in A Brief Inspection of A2 Milk

At the moment, it seems to be overly extolling the virtues of A2 milk, without looking at the different sides of the story. - Thejesterx 02:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears A2 Corporation doesn't actually sell the milk, they sell a test to identify which protein the cow produces. They license companies to produce it from cows which are identified with maximum A2 protein.

69.12.136.96 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I see what you mean, thanks for noticing that. The name of the company actually selling the milk here is 'A2 Australia Pty Limited' [2], and they call their product "a2 milk" - they've just licensed the logo from A2 Corporation. I just don't think A2 milk is really a "type of milk", its a trademark of the A2 Corporation which they license to milk distributors to apply to their milk, and I think the article should reflect this somehow. I'll try and phrase it more accurately. - Thejesterx 09:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done, the page now looks truly professional. Thanks for the input.

69.12.136.96 04:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Page title

I just noticed the inconsistency between the title of this page and that of A1: this page is A2 milk, whereas A1 is A1 (milk). I think either is ok, but for consistency they should both be the same. Unless anyone responds otherwise, I will move A2 milk to A2 (milk) shortly. Thejesterx 03:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess this should stay as "A2 milk" since the A2 Corporation's trademark is for "A2 milk". Guess the page names are the best how they are. - Thejesterx 09:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy?

I find the lack of any mention of conflict or controversy in this article disturbing. The claims about the possible effects of A1 milk and hence the reason for testing for A2 are not mentioned nor is the rebutal of such claims mentioned. Reading this article I wouldn't even suspect that this is a controversial subject. The whole point of A2, and its scientific validity or not, is missed. A naive reader would be misled. Why is the information in the external links not being included in this article? SmithBlue (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm concerned the article gives a lot of weight to the idea milk with predominantly A1 β-casein is harmful without making it clear most independent reviews have found the evidence is too weak to support the conclusion e.g. http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/policy-law/projects/a1-a2-milk/ Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, I was thinking of [3]. The current version is better. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We should include at least an overview of the references to the research showing the adverse effects of cow milk (in general) starting with T. Colin Campbell's well-known work. I can work on this at some point down the road. --Russmcb (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I made some big changes. I think we can get rid of the POV hatnote now Bhny (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

no disagreement, so I'll remove it Bhny (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Reasons to UNDO edits

Jmh649 and Bhny Kindly explain the reasons why you Undid my edits.Valid reasons to Undo EACH of my contributions would be appreciatedSrisharmaa (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A1 milk is proved to create health hazards like ... this isn't true. As someone already explained on your talk page-

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database

Bhny (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely. And linking this topic on major medical pages is not appropriate as there is in fact no evidence based link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have provided enough links for evidences.Did you check the external links?.Linking in pages that are related and which are the consequences of not using a2 milk IS sensible!Srisharmaa (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Start with providing references to published sources. Wikipedia is a place to share what has been published by reliable sources. You asked why your edits are being undone and it is because you are not providing quality references for your information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"A1 milk" page should not redirect here

A1 milk is different from A2 milk."A1 milk" page should not be redirected to "A2 milk" page.Srisharmaa (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure a slightly different protein, both can be discussed together though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Due to difference in protein they cannot/should be as one article.There is a sea difference between these two milk types which are of great concern for health-conscious people.There need to be more information added to these articles on A1 and A2 milk.Unfortunately,some editors do NOT allow such progress in some Wikipedia Articles!.Srisharmaa (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources says that their is not evidence to support a health difference. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise please provide a refDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Let us give a break to the health controversies as of now.A1 milk and A2 milk are different in many aspects.Do you think A1 and A2 to be the same to be discussed under a same article?.Srisharmaa (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the only article that mentions 'A1 milk' so of course it should redirect here, where else could it redirect? Bhny (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A new article on "A1 milk" should be recommended.I have submitted a "A1 milk" article for approval.So it should not redirect here after the approval of "A1 milk" article.Srisharmaa (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we agree that it should redirect here until or unless there is a better place for it to redirect to. Bhny (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Separate Article for "A2 milk brand" of A2 Corporation required

This article is NOT about A2 milk brand of a2 corporation.A new article needs to be created as "a2 milk brand".Luckily,A2 corporation has branded the A2 Type of milk as "a2 milk".This article should NOT be about the "a2 milk brand" of "a2 corporation" but about the "A2 milk" type in general."A2 milk Type" and "a2 milk brand" of a2 corporation are different and should to be as separate Articles.Srisharmaa (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure and this article is not about the brand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure there should be a wiki article on A2 Milk in the first place, but to propose a second one is going a little too far. Roxy the dog (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can separate A2 from the brand. A2 isn't some well known scientific term. It seems to be a marketing term Bhny (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me know why you say "A2 milk" as a marketing term.To differentiate the most common A1 milk,people call it as A2 milk.I have already said marketing brands about a2 milk need to be removed OR shifted( which confuses "A2 milk type" with "a2 milk brad") to a new article if required.I cannot help further to make people understand the basic differences!.Srisharmaa (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We have already had some spam problems, and notability is borderline - two separate articles is a step too far, I think, and it would raise the possibility of a pov-fork. bobrayner (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"See also"s that should link here

This is part of a discussion with Srisharmaa regarding which other articles should "See also" link here. Originally, Srisharmaa had added over two dozen See also links to here, and several editors did not find that to be the right thing. So I wanted to discuss what would be an appropriate See also list here (seems like a central location) so that we can get consensus for it.

First, in general I do not think See alsos are very useful. Anything that might be in a See also should really be as a wikilink within sourced article content. If an article does not have sourced content regarding a topic, that is a good indicator it is not closely related enough to put into a See also. So, the first choice is to modify the related articles to include relevant sourced content that mentions A2 milk and wikilink it. The question would be, which are the appropriate articles to do that for. Here's my proposed list of articles that should have sourced content related to A2 milk, wikilinked here:

• Milk
• Dairy cattle

Until the articles can be updated with appropriate sourced content and wikilink, a See also can be added. Sound good? Any argument for a larger or smaller list? Zad68 16:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A1/A2 is about casein proteins. It really should only link from articles about casein. There's already a link from the casein article- Casein#A1.2FA2_beta_caseins_in_milk Bhny (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent research

Possibly relevant research cited here, some from recent months (as of early 2014): http://keithwoodford.wordpress.com/category/a1-and-a2-milk/ - from the author of Devil in the Milk. On the one hand he's a scientist (and co-authored some of the research), but on the other he does seem motivated to confirm his hypothesis, so I don't know how objective he can be. --Chriswaterguy talk 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems interesting, but we can't use his blog as a source, and the actual study is a primary source- WP:PRIMARY, so it is not good to use that either. If the paper gets written about in a reliable source then we can use that. Bhny (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent bold edit

A lot of material was recently added and I reverted with the hope of discussing it here. There still seems to be no consensus that A2 milk is somehow better than A1, and no official opinion recommending one over the other. There a few papers but these are wp:primary and not good a source. There is also the "Devil in Milk" which probably is useless as a source. Anecdotes of course shouldn't even be mentioned. Bhny (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I will reinstate this. The article is now based on far more than a primary source. It covers the whole issue of A2 milk, which has been the subject of numerous scientific studies (cited) and news articles (cited). BlackCab (TALK) 02:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment that "There still seems to be no consensus that A2 milk is somehow better than A1" is entirely irrelevant to the notability of the subject. Nor is the lack of an "official opinion", whatever that might be. Your edit summary states: "Much of this "evidence" is from a single book, anecdotes or primary sources," which is quite an astonishing error. There is a single anecdote (from the dairy farmer); the "primary sources" may refer to the scientific papers, which are appropriately cited. At a rough count there are 41 news reports cited in the article from Australia and New Zealand, indicating the range of media coverage. Your dismissal of Devil in the Milk as a "useless" source is also intriguing. It was published by a respected publisher and clearly meets the standard of a reliable source. The book has also been widely cited in news media and Woodford has been widely quoted in news articles and TV programmes on the issue. BlackCab (TALK) 02:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There still seems to be no consensus that A2 milk is somehow better than A1 is obviously extremely relevant to the article. Why are you bringing up notability? The sectioin A2 milk digestive benefits is mostly anecdotes. Also the normal way WP:BRD works is that you leave the revert until things are discussed.Bhny (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)