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

IMPORTANT note on milk: Goes great on cereal.

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)

YES THERE IS

You wrote:"Milk allergy may arise as a RESULT of ulcerative colitis, not the other way around"

Or it may not. There is little evidence whatsoever what are the a factors in the aetiology of ulcerative colitis. I have strong suspicions that HOMOGENIZED milk is one of them.

Warrington (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen websites cite this study to argue that milk causes heart disease. They fail to mention that the study examines correlation in nations between the correlation between food production and heart disease incidence. http://www.thorne.com/media/milk_heartdisease.pdf

This study gives opposing evidence for individuals. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1731907

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)

What the hell is your problem? You really need to get out more if such a common thing offends you. You must be the kind of person who call in radio shows to complain about mothers breastfeeding their babies in public places. --208.71.184.41 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (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)

--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 22:33, 20 August 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)

Sorry, that should have read "most non-caucasian people" become lactose intolerant. Even a significant number of caucasians become at least partially lactose intolerant after breast-feeding ceases. Halogenated (talk) 19:01, 16 August 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.74.112 (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Trans fat is also a naturally occurring form of saturated fat in animal products, and is inconsequential in those quantities. However some companies may add it for texture or flavour. This is not typical AFAIK. Halogenated (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

China

I think the Chinese 'distribution' section is a bit flawed: firstly it says that people drink milk who don't want to drink at meals; just a little grammatical niggle there, secondly, milk is only sold in 'pouches' in the north of China, in the south it is almost all in cartons, often flavoured and with added vitamins and calcium. Except in big cities, semi-skimmed milk is scarce and skimmed milk is practically non-existent. Recently a lactose-free variety of milk has been introduced to offer a largely lactose-intolerant population the nutrients that milk provides. Also, to encourage kids to drink milk, adverts with Yao Ming (7'6" basketball player) are everywhere, implying that it helps one to grow.

Gob home in ocamside ok.

To-do list for Milk: edit · history · watch · refresh 

There are numerous flaws with the structure, objectivity, and general writing style applied to this article. The use of weasel words is rampant, and it sounds like it has been edited with malicious intent. It is important to note the skeptism by many of the value of milk and possible health concerns, but statements such as "pus" are inaccurate and simply used to draw a negative emotional reaction. There are far too many examples to even list here, clearly a group of experienced wiki-editors are needed.

"Ethnic groups" (a cultural unit) should more properly read "racial groups" (a genetic unit) since lactose intolerace is based on genetic (not cultural) differences, in the opening section when citing lactose intolerance post toddler age.

I think it's fine that we present the claims made by anti-milk groups, but we need to seperate, or at least denote the validity of certain claims versus others. Lactose intolerance, is definitely a real, documented milk-related health concern- an autism link to milk consumption has only been postulated. We should explain to the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.255.89 (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Goat milk and folic acid

I propose adding the following sentence as the last sentence of the section "Nutrition: comparison by animal source": "Infants fed only goat milk with no folic acid supplement can suffer from deficiency, as goat milk has only one-tenth as much folic acid as cow's milk.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but only if goat's milk is the sole source of folic acid in their diet. Halogenated (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Its so damn hot. Milk was a bad choice.

History

This section makes some very specific claims, but has very few references. Without some citations, this section should not continue to exist as it does. I will try and hunt some down, but I'm strapped for time at the moment. Anyone care to help? Halogenated (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Milk pH?

Since pH is explained in the wikilink, it seems pointless to note that it is "slightly acidic." While this is true, the article on pH says that any liquid with a pH less than 7 is "acid", so to be consistent, this article should say that "milk is acid" or simply leave that phrase out, or find a reference that claims that 6.4-6.8 is "slightly acid." Otherwise "slightly acid" is OR. Bob98133 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Chirality

• Does anyone know Milk's chiral? I was wondering because I came across a line in "Through the Looking Glass", in which Alice muses whether or not Looking-Glass milk is edible. Thanks.

--Cokeandpoprocks (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

== If you want to look for whst is semi skimmed milk don't bother =='''Link title''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.104.59 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor inaccuracies and corrections

• "The carbohydrate lactose gives milk its sweet taste and contributes about 40% of whole cow milk's calories." No, about a third of the Calories come from lactose. See the table under Nutritional Value; 20.8 Calories out of 62.85 (33%) are contributed by lactose.

An additional source: http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-milk-cow-whole-full-fat-3-25-fat_f-Y2lkPTM1NjkxJmJpZD0xJmZpZD02ODY1MSZlaWQ9MzUwMDcyMzk4JnBvcz0yJnBhcj0ma2V5PXdob2xlIG1pbGs.html

• "Milk is a source of Conjugated linoleic acid, a fatty acid that inhibits several types of cancer in mice.[citation needed]"

First, note that CLA is a fat, and whole milk would have the most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.255 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure which part of the statement is in question, but this is very well-known:

"Milk fat is the richest natural dietary source of CLA, averaging about 5.5 mg CLA/g." (http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/NationalDairyCouncil/Nutrition/Products/milkPage4.htm)

(http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin182.pdf)

"Antioxidant and anti-cancer properties have been attributed to CLA, and studies on mice and rats show encouraging results in hindering the growth of tumors in mammary, skin, and colon tissues.[6]"

(From the Wikipedia article "Conjugated linoleic acid," but note the study cited; the information did not just come from Wikipedia's users)

• "CLA has been shown to kill human skin cancer, colorectal cancer and breast cancer cells in vitro studies, and may help lower cholesterol and prevent atherosclerosis; CLA is present only in milk from grass-fed cows.[citation needed]"

All of these are well-known facts about CLA, except for the last part. That CLA is present only in milk from grass-fed cows is false; there are other foods (See http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin182.pdf, Page 87, for a list) that can be fed to cows to increase CLA content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.255 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The topic of Breast milk needs to be added onto the section of See also

Breast milk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.190.54 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Breast and breastfeeding are already linked. Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo in subsection 'modern production'

The table "Top Ten Buffalow Milk Producers" has a typo, it should be titled "Top Ten Buffalo Milk Producers". Also, because the numbers are from 2007, it is best titled as "Top Ten Buffalo Milk Producers in 2007"

Pronunciation...

Can some others weigh in here? I recently had a bit of a debate with someone about how to pronounce this word. My friend says it should be pronounced just like the word "mill" (but with a "K" sound at the end), whereas I've always pronounced it and heard it pronounced as something more in the direction of "melk." The dictionaries that I've looked at all seem to have pronunciation keys that side with my friend here, but it still doesn't match with my experience. I don't know if a regional/dialect issue. Mine is American English, Mid-Western to be specific, and it may well be pronounced differently in different places. But for me, in spite of what prounciation keys may say to the contrary, the "I" in "milk" sounds quite different from the "I" in "mill." I believe I even recall, from back in elementary school that the word was often mis-spelled with an "E." Others please give opinion here, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.88.143 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Milk May Contribute to Type 1 Diabetes

Several studues in Finland have been conducted in recent years on the connection between type 1 diabetes and milk consumption...Finland has the highest rate of milk consumption so this seems like a good place to find some answers

Milk May Contribute to Type 1 Diabetes - ArticlesJun 17, 2000 ... Children who consume more milk are at higher risk of Type 1 diabetes, which occurs when the pancreas is no longer able to produce insulin. articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/06/17/milk-diabetes-part-one.aspx - 49k - Cached - Similar pages - More results from articles.mercola.com » —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johara95 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

milk

milk and pepole cunbind makse erike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.181.163 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Price

In reading this article I was shocked by the claim that biofuels have increased milk prices. I am sorry I do not know how to contribute so maybe somone can help. Prices for ag products have declined by nearly 50 percent since 2007. Yet milk prices have remained high in the stores. So this just not seem like a true statement. Any help with refrences to correct the price statement would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.52.123 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section not controversial about Montsanto

The third paragraph appears to be written by Montsanto representatives. Someone more knowledgable about the rbst cancer link should provide the information with a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.230.148 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Most humans lactose intolerant?

"Most humans lose the ability to fully digest milk after childhood (that is, they become lactose intolerant). "

Can this fact be referenced please? Are we sure that most humans are lactose intolerant? --mgaved (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Adult mammals lack the enzyme lactaze (if I remember correctly) which means they can't process milk. Humans are an exception, and even among us it's almost exclusively people of northern european descent. At work right now so I can't find a proper source =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.218.38 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a ref [1]- It's quite clear, the article states: "it is adult lactose tolerance for cows' milk that is unusual." There is no shortage of refs for this, and there doesn't appear to be any dispute about it, so I think it's OK to stand without an inline ref. Bob98133 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Irn Bru is not a milk product

"South Australia has the highest consumption of flavored milk per person in the world, where Farmers Union Iced Coffee outsells Coca-Cola, a success shared only by Inca Kola in Peru and Irn-Bru in Scotland."

Irn Bru is not a flavoured milk product. Not sure what the above section is trying to say? Irn Bru is a more popular soft drink than Coca-Cola in Scotland and I've heard it said that it's one of the few countries that the local soft drink outsells Coca-Cola, but I am not sure this includes consumption of any non-alcoholic drink (e.g. coffee, tea, milk, etc). I think this sentence needs clarifying. --mgaved (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Skim milk

How come "Skim milk" redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skim_milk#Varieties_and_brands when there's nothing whatsoever about skim milk in that section?

People searching for that term likely want information about just that, and not about "half-and-half" or whatever, not that there's really any information on any of the listed varieties either. /85.229.218.38 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

female

Why the first line of the article mentions "female"? Then what's the stuff coming out of male mammary glands when you press them? Alien blood? apple juice? Maybe it could replace biofuels. Since it's probably more abundant in fat people, that would solve USA's energetic dependance...

I agree, males can also produce milk... see Male lactation. -- the librariaŋ (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A few updates needed for clarification

The UHT processing of milk is becoming more and more common recently. But they are calling it "Ultra Pasturized Milk". I think this verbage should be added in the pasturization section, to stay current with industry/marketing terms.

Also Raw milk is becomming more available. It should be mentioned in the Nutritional sections that most of the vitamins listed are fully present in raw milk, but are eliminated or reduced during pasturization, and much more so during UHT. In the Lactose Intolerance section it should be noted that this is a result of the pasturization process, not an inherent property of cow milk. Raw cow milk and goats milk do not have this adverse reaction in humans because: raw milk contains the [enzyme lactase] needed for digestion, and goats milk does not contain [Lactose].

Alager (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Aaron, 3/1/2009

Raw mild doesn't contain lactase, though it may contain co-enzymes that facilitate its production. [2][3]. Some vitamins are heat sensitive, and some are not. This should be further referenced. (And cultures that don't pasteurize their milk often boil it or ferment it before serving). FiveRings (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. According to Organic Pastures[4] web site: "Natural organic raw milk has in it vitally important living things. These include the following: beneficial bacteria, enzymes (including lipase, protease. and other), lactase forming bacteria, and many enzyme based pathogen killing systems. The common practice of pasteurization inactivates or dramatically reduces the effects of these important active (living) elements. As a result, you may be lactose intolerant when drinking pasteurized milk, but not lactose intolerant when you drink raw milk. This is because lactase enzymes are being formed when you digest raw milk..."

Your first link to realmilk.com is confusing, as they state both that raw milk DOES contain lactase AND that it does NOT.

So maybe since there is a fair amount of mis-information on this point it should be added correctly to this article.

[5]"However, raw milk does contain lactic acid bacteria – notably species of Lactobaccili and Lactococci. These bacteria are naturally found in milk and ferment lactose into lactic acid using their handy enzyme B-galactosidase." Alager (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think to properly address this issue, you need better sources. The Organic Pastures website seems more like an advocacy source than a reference. Talking about "vitally important living things" (things you can't live without), then claiming that they are only available in raw milk, is a leap; as is the section on the reference page that talks about enzymes going to sleep or waking up. Not terribly scientific. There's got to be verifyable sources out there. Bob98133 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What is in question? Is it that raw milk contains the bacteria [6], United_States_raw_milk_debate, or that the bacteria does what is claimed? Probiotic, Lactose, Beta-galactosidase? Alager (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a better (non-advocate) source, yes. Part of the confusion is that lactase is produced over time - it's not in the milk fresh out of the cow, but it will be if you leave the milk to sit so the bacteria can do its work (also true of pasteurized milk if it is re-inoculated with lactobacillus). Once you've got lactase (the enzyme), produced by lactobacllus (the bacteria), you still need to give the enzyme time to digest the lactose (milk sugar). This is why Lactaid (a commercial preparation of lactase) says to add the drops to the milk container and then let it sit for 24 hours. Have I lost you yet? (Maybe a chart) FiveRings (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't lose me, I think what you are adding is great stuff. I've never heard/read that before (that it happens over time), do you have a reference for that process? I think that would be a great addition to the article. Which Lactaid product are you refering to? I could only find dietary suplements, nothing to add to regular milk.Alager (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a blog post - http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stevecarper/drops.htm People with irritable bowel syndrome are very up on the whole lactose thing. FiveRings (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)