Talk:Milk

Osteoporosis

I know Wikipedia strives for the highest standards in correctness and accuracy, but I hope that usefulness is important, too. And a useful source on the topic of milk should at least point to the many connections between milk consumption and osteoporosis. I live in Finland, the country with highest consumption of milk in the world. We have also a very big problem with osteoporosis and an increased number of hip fractures due to osteoporosis (refer to "Increased incidence of hip fractures. A population based-study in Finland", Eija Lönnroos et al., Bone 39 (2006) 623–627). I think it would be responsible to at least mention the possibility of a link between milk and dairy product consumption and increased risk of osteoporosis, so that people could do their own research. 91.153.152.27 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Added a bit on osteoporosis in the medical studies section. Meviin (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sol or emulsion?

In the page Colloid, it says that milk is a sol. This page states that it's an emulsion. What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.43.152 (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Low Fat Cow Milk Linked to Prostrate Cancer?

I've been hearing this for a little bit now and I'm not sure if we should add it in.

Here's one of the articles I found of it: http://news.aol.com/health/story/_a/nonfat-low-fat-milk-linked-to-cancer/20080102175409990001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.62.107 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unhomogenized milk

Is also available in Finland (as "luomu" milk products), and I'm willing to bet also in Sweden and possibly other nearby countries. --M.A. (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

they actually have inhomogenized milk in the US as well ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Article getting out of control

Perhaps this article should be broken down into two or three separate articles since there is so much controversy and directly conflicting information about milk. For example, medical benefits such as possibility of increased fertility and reduced risk of some diseases are in the nutritional benefits section. The first reference I pulled up when checking this referenced the November 2004 edition of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which a study indicated that even moderate consumption of milk led to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Perhaps controversy about milk, benefits/detriments, could be separated and linked from this article which could be an NPOV article just about milk, production, types, etc.?Bob98133 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All articles are requires to meet the NPOV criteria to qualify for wikipedia. I agree a separate article on the controvery over milk might be a good idea, but it needs to be similarily critiqued and use valid references. Simply creating a "milk sucks" article lined up with a bunch of references to questionable websites is hardly appropriate, and unfortunately what a number of presumably well-meaning but misguided individuals wish to do. There are definitely some valid articles linking milk to certain conditions including ovarian cancer and prostate inflammation, but we must bear in mind the increased risk does not necessarily imply a substantially higher overall risk. Additionally, it also depends on how well these studies have controlled for other factors, which in case studies is not generally the case. Halogenated (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's an edit war brewing on the controversy section. I just reverted this text an NPOV and unencyclopedic:

A number of advocate groups (e.g. Viva! (throught their website MilkMyths), PETA) (through their website MilkSucks) have sprung up protesting that milk presents a health threat . Whilst no study has concluded any causal health risk to normal individuals consuming moderate quantities milk, the scientific report White Lies: The health consequences of consuming cow’s milk. by Dr. Justine Butler, Professor T. Colin Campbell and Professor Jane Plant CBE (and its companion DVD ) is the first scientific reportt of its kind to raise awareness about the enormous health consequences of consuming dairy products. </bockquote> --Mdwyer (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm the above seems to be false anyway "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which a study indicated that even moderate consumption of milk led to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Perhaps controversy about milk" would seem to indicate that there have been studies that prove that moderate consumption does have a health risk to it. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well if we're trying to be NPOV you might as well get rid of ref.16 by the "National Milk Council" surely if we're removing information that comes from a source that couldn't be considered NPOV this would be one, no? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if you actually look at the references it further references 6 articles published in well-accepted peer reviewed journals including the Journal of the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine. Something most of these other sources don't do. Argue if you want about stacked odds in favour of potential nepotism and corporate agendas (I can read your mind), you might have a valid point, but they carry a lot more crediblity than websites named "milksucks" and PETA. Halogenated (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say each group has equal interest to the opposite in the sense of POV, and I don't think you can view something as any more or less POV based upon its name. You'll find if you look through "milk sucks" it is just as well referenced as the farmers website.. hmmm -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One look at the site makes it apparent how it is blatant vegan propaganda. Even if it contained good links, which according to the editorial diatribes in the news it linked to it doesn't seem to, the very tone of the site is a complete negative spin using reactionary and sensationalist techniques. There are many good arguments against mass-dairy farming for the health of the animals and the environment, but the ones for human health are generally weak, and based largely on a disdain of consumption of animal based products, a point of view definitely not shared by the bulk of the world, and with no significant evidence to claims of superior health. Yes, drinking plenty of heavy cream daily will probably make you fat and more prone to certain obesity related illnesses (e.g. heart disease and diabetes). So would eating lots of saturated fat-laden avocadoes and coconut cream daily. Arguments for health are largely based on irresponsible eating habits, which are independent on the choice of diet type (vegetarian, vegan, or omnivorous). These web sites bring no verifiable evidence on the matter to light, and come strictly from a propagandist POV. The articles on milksucks are from the news media, who are hardly well recognised for their ability to properly interpret scientific journal articles (a major complaint from most well established scientists, who often find their research greatly exaggerated for better or worse. Hammy scientists do little to help this). The national dairy council is certainly partisan, and undoubtedly full of smooth-talking lobbyists, but at least they go the length to argue with reasonable citations borne from actual studies. If you don't agree with those, and wish to challenge them, that's excellent, but do so with better evidence that meets Wikipedia's standards. Ideally, the links to the milk council and similar organisations should be represented only for non-disputed general facts, and links to the actual scientific articles themselves should be posted for more specific claims, and the material reviewed by people with the ability to properly read through the jargon. This is a lot of work, so it's understandable that people are hesitant to do so. If you or anyone can bring good evidence to light regarding health problems and milk, let's post it, that's important. In fact, we'll make an article dedicated to it that will stand up to scrutiny. I understand that given the reputation of milk and decades of lobbying by the milk industry this is made quite difficult, but let's not comprimise the position with lousy evidence and taint by well-meaning but over-zealous vegans. Halogenated (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I did a little bit of adding refs, removing weasels, copy-editing, etc. More to come later, if you disagree, help me fix it up, i'm probably a little partial towards the pro-vegan side of things. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better! Sorry about coming down so hard, this article has been a frequent target by sometimes misinformed individuals who are often not familiar with how to properly contribute. Your recent edits fit well, thanks for helping out. If you want to create another article that addresses controversies over milk in-depth (e.g. health, environment, animal welfare, etc) I would certainly do all I can to contribute constructively. Seeing as how milk is a rather large and generalised article, that might be a good idea. Cheers. Halogenated (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Non credible sources? References to these statements are as follows:

• MDC, 2004. Dairy facts and figures 2003. Compiled and published by the Milk Development Council, Cirencester, UK. Available from: http://www.dairyuk.org/pdf/MDC_DFactsFig_1612.pdf [Accessed July 26 2005].
• Berry, E. Middleton, N., Gravenor, M. and Hillerton, E. 2003. Science (or art) of cell counting. Proceedings of the British Mastisis Conference (2003) Garstang. 73-83.
• Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995. Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1086, London, HMSO.
• Blowey, R. and Edmondson, P. 2000. Mastitis control in dairy herds. UK: Farming Press Books.
• Grosvenor, C.E., Picciano, M.F. and Baumrucker C.R. 1992. Hormones and growth factors in milk. Endocrine Reviews. 14 (6) 710-28.
• White Lies: The health consequences of consuming cow’s milk. by Dr Justine Butler, Professor T. Colin Campbell, PhD

(Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY), Professor Jane Plant CBE (DSc, CEng) Life Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, Professor of Applied Geochemistry, Imperial College, London. Edited by: Juliet Gellatley BSc DipDM

Robert C Prenic (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Halogenated: You recently reverted my edits. As I look back on them, I see that some of my sources were secondary rather than primary sources. However, I do think that a few of my edits are necessary and do not contradict that which is in the talk pages.

In the lactose intolerance section, there is a sentence that reads "The production of this enzyme declines significantly after weaning in all mammals including humans(except for most northern westerners and a few other ethnic groups, lactase decline occurs after weaning, sometime between the ages of two and five)." I'm really not sure what the parenthetical note is trying to say. First, what is a northern westerner - someone who lives in the northwest hemisphere? Is the parenthetical note supposed to be its own sentence, or is it supposed to interact with the sentence that it is in? That note is not in the main article on lactose intolerance, and it seems completely unnecessary for a brief overview of lactose intolerance in the milk article. Do you think that we need to include that note? Also, I was under the impression that references to other wikipedia articles should be done by just linking the relevant text rather than providing a footnote, so I changed the footnote referencing the anaerobic respiration wikipedia page to a wikipedia link. Do you disagree with this?

Now that I look through the talk archives, I do agree that notmilk is probably not the best source to use. I'll try to track down the primary sources that were referenced in my other articles and use those. Thanks for keeping everything clean; I'll make new talk sections for the other edits.

Meviin (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

uh-oh, what have i done?

In the nutrional detriments section there is part where the article says "the are some groups" then there is a reference. I thought i had accidently deleted the following bit, but when you goto edit it, it shows that it is still there, but nonetheless, it doesn't show on the article itself? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy - White Bloods cells

The reason I added a statement indicating that there are no studies demonstrating that white bloods cells in milk are a concern is because there isn't! Why is this controverial then? If this is to be included under the controversy section, then it should be controversial, which would indicate a concern with health. Perhaps you could add something indicating there is concern over the health of the cattle with elevated white blood cell counts, but other than the silly "ick" factor, it is not a human health concern. As it stands, this statement needs to be fleshed out or moved to a different section of the article Halogenated (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to this section. I reluctantly added a statement r.e. paratuberculosis transmission and somatic cells. I say relatantly, because the author is highly one-sided with an obvious personal bias. However because the source uses a peer-reviewed journal as it's primary source, I have included this info. I need to access the primary source to see if it has been properly used though. Not now, no time. So until then, I believe it should stand until proven otherwise, as I have only some reason to doubt the veracity of the information.

Also, changed the order in which these items are stated, because the hormone controversy leads to mastitis which is the reason for the main reason for the elevated white cell counts.

I removed the citation needed tag for the comment r.e. no studies have shown a link between the hormones and health impacts - problem is, the burden of proof is to show that a study has in fact linked these, not the other way around. Given the strong statements made about the hormone use, a caveat about this is in order. If there are no studies, and no one here as presented any, than I believe the statement should stand, either as is or with modification. Halogenated (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Controvery Section

Once again, I have revised this section ude to misinformation. I am frankly getting pretty tired of having to sort through other people's dirty laundry. I removed several statements and links due to either misrepresenatation of the information or even complete contradiction of the conclusions of the articles. It is not up to the person posting the info to draw their own conclusions. For example:

increased risk of developing atopic disease after early feeding with cows' milk based formula http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/67/8/1008

The abstract clearly states:

"Cows' milk based formula given on the maternity ward does not seem to increase the risk of developing atopic disease. "

There you have it.

ulcerative colitis http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1412480

Article states: "Absorption of allergens may be facilitated by mucosal damage, such as that of coeliac disease, with stimulation of antibody production. At the present time, however, there is little evidence to suggest that milk allergy is a factor in the aetiology of ulcerative colitis."

Therefore milk allergy may arise as a RESULT of ulcerative colitis, not the other way around!

Hirschsprung's disease–mimicking symptoms due to milk proteins http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WKP-4MHHXD1-X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=760c097c4357bff51dd6ede9bb7ef633

Article indicates:

"Results Of 26 cases, 9 were diagnosed as HD by manometric studies and 17 as CMA. Thirteen of 17 CMA cases had been fed with breast milk and 4 with formula milk.

Conclusion The proportion of CMA in the cases presenting with HD-like symptoms in the neonatal period is much higher than what we expected, and most cases of BTNIN are caused by CMA. If HD is ruled out, CMA should be considered."

This indicates that Hirschsprung's disease–mimicking symptoms are present only in infants for the study, and are due to pre-existing milk allergies, not milk proteins directly. These allergies are not necessarily brought about by cow milk consumption, as most of the infants were breast-fed.

celiac disease among the lactose intolerant http://www.celiac.com/articles/891/1/Celiac-Disease-Common-in-Patients-with-Lactose-Intolerance/Page1.html Celiac Disease Common in Patients with Lactose Intolerance]</ref> "...the researchers conclude that a full 24% of patients with a positive H(2)-lactose breath test have celiac disease which is the likely cause of their lactose intolerance, and that anyone with a positive H(2)-lactose breath test should first be screened for celiac disease before excluding milk from their diets."

No comment necessary. Halogenated (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition and Health Section

In my opinion, it is inappropriate for the subsection headings to read "nutritional benefits" and "nutritional...detriments". Many of the points enumerated aren't proved benefits or negatives but only suggestive evidence. Moreover, the health benefits section is almost all original research, as many points are not sourced. They should be either sourced or removed (note: the sources must explicitly indicate that the points are considered "health benefits" of milk). --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)  Done --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the edits, flows much better now. I do feel though there may be a place for some of the information you removed. It was not cited, however it should not be difficult to find citations for this information as it is pretty commonly known (e.g. milk contains vitamins x,y,z). Nothing too big, just a short sentence or two indicating this. I'll see if I have time to find some decent references and put something together. Otherwise good work!Halogenated (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I only removed the following text from the article:

• "and B12 is difficult to get outside of animal products or else as supplemental pills."
• "Advocacy groups such PETA and the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation have attempted to establish a link between consumption of dairy products and various illnesses and diseases."
• "Lactose intolerance, discussed below."

The rest of the text (including the info on vitamins) is still there. I just renamed the headings and moved some text to more appropriate subsections. As you indicate, the "nutritional value" of milk is common knowledge and is not disputed. The sources indicated in the "References" section probably cover these nutritional facts, so inline citations may not be necessary.

--Phenylalanine (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be my oversight, I was a little lazy about looking through the article. Cheers, and keep up the good edit work! Halogenated (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Notmilk web site

An EL to http://notmilk.com/ was recently taken down with the note that it has nothing to to with the article. I looked at this site and agree that it is an anti-milk advocacy site, however, the couple of articles I looked at appeared to be documented and referenced. I agree that it should not be an EL, but I think the site can be useful to investigate milk controversy or by leading you to references which can then be checked. I think that this site could be carefully used as a source in this article, or used to find sources, as long as it is clear that they promote a POV.Bob98133 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that careful use of the site as a source would be possible. Keith D (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

2008-04-15: Someone added this to my talk page (presumably, after removing the notmilk.com external link):

"You need to take a critical look at the source you're presenting. The site notmilk.com is incredible biased towards a POV considered not scientifically viable, or reasonable. The author(s) are presenting a highly one-sided case with little peer-reviewed references, and those that are given are highly selective. There are many reasonable arguments that persuade against the consumption of milk, but this website does not do justice to most."

I couldn't disagree more. Get past the homepage to see that most pages on notmilk.com are quotes from several to dozens of sources, including Nature and various medical journals, both general and highly specialized. I'm not sure how much more "scientific" scientific can get?

Like most people, I consider myself to be a relatively educated person, but in thirty years I'd never heard anything like what's presented on notmilk.com, and I believe that by de-including that alternative viewpoint on wikipedia --what should be THE end-all source for information-- taints the overall spirit and purpose as much as promulgates a potentially harmful disservice to humanity.

It seems to me that anyone who disincludes notmilk.com essentially argues against including, what?, 11 characters (notmilk.com) that could markedly improve someone else's life, and I find that highly unconscionable.

Let the reader decide, but at least let him be aware of all the options and information.

Obviously, notmilk.com is biased against milk, yet there are literally thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of very concise quotes on notmilk.com, identified by harmful effect or condition (osteoporosis, anemia, migraines), with every one sourced from verifiable medical or scientific journals. Here's one example (under "A for allergies"): "Dairy products may play a major role in the development of ALLERGIES, asthma, sleep difficulties, and migraine headaches." --Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 1983;19(9):806-809 Pediatrics 1989;84(4):595-603. It goes on and on.

It seems to be an astoundingly brazen, purposefully harmful omission to disinclude valid, valuable, and fully sourced information, and --truly-- it harms incredibly the credibility and spirit of good intent that wikipedia should be known for. It's *only* 11 characters: notmilk.com

Meanwhile, the controversial and limited-POV milk article quotes all over the place multi-million-dollar advertising and promotion, none of it sourced beyond the obvious vested interests and with zero scientific anything, making the entire article a total and shameful sham.

How can this issue be raised for arbitration?

Patriotick (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several combinations of 11 contiguous characters that should never be published on wikipedia. That is a silly argument. Wikipedia is not the end-all-be-all of information. If someone wants to find notmilk.com, they can simply go to any internet search engine and type in "milk". It comes up in google near the top of the second page. It is not the responsibility of wikipedia to direct people to highly biased and one-sided websites. Having looked over many of the articles on the site, they are certainly not even remotely close to peer-reviewed journal publications, but instead are editiorialised diatribes with some cherry-picked quotes from journals - this is hardly scientific. I should not have to "get past" the home page, because it sets the entire point of the page, which is anything but a NPOV. Again, I implore you to read up on what constitutes acceptable reference material on wikipedia. There is certainly a small amount of wiggle-room, but definitely NOT the page notmilk.com - this is clearly being enforced by administrators and editors alike.

It's not a matter of balancing viewpoints, but instead providing information and references that are as minimally biased as possible. The article already has a section discussing potential health issues associated with milk, and after much diligence to weed out the barrage of edits by uninformed and misguided individuals we've finally produced something reasonable in it's presentation. I've already made clear that if you or anyone wants to write an article on wikipedia that details this further, I support this, but be aware that doesn't make it a licence to add pages like notmilk.com. Regards, Halogenated (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

the calf sucking picture

is this really needed? too graphic in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomamma22 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be replaced by an HSUS image of dairy cows being lifted by forklifts for slaughter. What do you find too graphic about a nursing calf?Bob98133 (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder why it is too graphic. One of the problems with modern society is the disconnect with the 'way of nature'. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tables in the "Modern production" section

The three huge tables recently introduced in the "Modern production" section violate Wikipedia:Summary style, and should be moved or removed accordingly. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Delisting from GA status

I am boldly delisting this article per the instructions at Good Article Reassessment, as it obviously fails to continue to meet the GA criteria. In fact, if under review right now, it would be automatically failed per the quick-fail criteria. Please feel free to improve the article back to GA standards and renominate it. Thank you, VanTucky 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Zulu politics and milk

Anyone want to add this to the article?

"Boys spent their most impressionable years as young adolescents drinking twice a day from the udders of the royal cows. They were drinking of life, administered by the king. The king’s control of the flow of milk in Zulu society was the source of his power and the mechanism by which he controlled the state."

---

They Poured Themselves into the Milk: Zulu Political Philosophy Under Shaka*

---

BY Paul K Bjerk a1 a1 University of Wisconsin-Madison The Journal of African History (2006), 47: 1-19

24.130.198.167 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fat content of milk

The section about different types of milk (e.g. by fat content) seemed patchy, and was poorly referenced. I therefore move information relating to the above into a new article, and tried to organise it into some sense, together with new research.LHMike (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cottage cheese

Perhaps cottage cheese could be mentioned as being nutritionally one of the best cheeses/foods available. I also placed a picture at the cheese article. This may be integrated aswell into the milk-article. Cheers

KVDP (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If you have a reference to support this, but I doubt that a food with zero fiber is so nutritionally wonderful. Bob98133 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Under the section 'History of milk' - 'Morgan compton likes cock'

rgds 82.29.82.118 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganize medical studies section

The medical studies section seems very disorganized. I will admit that I have contributed to it, but it seems like each paragraph starts at some cancer, goes to a brain disease, and then continues to wander a bit. The paragraphs on white blood cells and rBGH seem to be mostly on one topic, though the rBGH one could be broken up into several paragraphs. I'm not quite sure what the best way would be to reorganize the rest of the paragraphs. Maybe the best strategy would be to just break it up by topic and include subheadings - ie, a subheading for cancer, for autism, for allergies, etc. And rBGH should probably get its own section: the arguments are not about whether the milk itself is (un)healthy, but whether the IGF-1 has an increased presence in milk from rBGH-treated cows and the health effects of that. That might just be my own peeve, though. Meviin (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This section is definitely in need of a good housecleaning again. Every once in a while someone comes in and cleans house, then slowly things get cluttered again. There has been a long standing discussion here r.e. health effects and milk, and much of it probably goes beyond the scope of this article. It has been suggested in numerous instances to create a separate article for this, and I agree Halogenated (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bioavailability of calcium in milk versus veggies

The article's section of bioavailability of calcium currently reads "Calcium from dairy products has a greater bioavailability than calcium from certain vegetables, such a spinach, that contain high levels of calcium-chelating agents.[21]" From what I've read (Am J Clin Nutr Heaney and Weaver 51 (4): 656), Spinach seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Kale and other vegetables in the Brassica genus are low-oxalate and high-calcium, which causes them to have better calcium bioavailability than milk. My previous edit to this effect was reverted. I assume that this was because I cited notmilk rather than actually looking it up in the american journal of clinical nutrition. If anyone still objects now that I have the primary source, feel free to revert again. Meviin (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a good primary reference for the material please feel free to add this. I reverted the edits largely due to the reference to notmilk.com which frankly is a terrible cherry-picked collection of scattered and often unrelated materials written from a highly biased POV. Some of the other points had been debated and decided upon previously here. If you wish to challenge them it would be best to bring new material to refute the previous decisions. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2008 (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)

Contradiction

Article states "Most humans lose the ability to fully digest milk after childhood (that is, they become lactose intolerant)." However, this is contradicted on the lactose intolerant page which claims only 20% of adults are lactose intolerant. Verytallrob (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You should fix it. There's no way MOST adults are lactose intolerant. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually yes, most adults are lactose intolerant. If you read the article here, it shows that only in a small number of racial groups do adults typically retain lactase activity. Basically, most caucasian people become lactose intolerant rapidly after breast-feeding ceases. Halogenated (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

milk and backpain?`

Is there any study showing a connection? Maybe milk allergies connected with backpain?Lakinekaki (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

trans fat

all the 1% and 2% and 3% and chocolate milk I've seen has trans fat on the label. like .1 or .2 per serving. I thought trans fat was bad for you and was an additive. why is it in milk?