Jump to content

Talk:A2 milk/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Inaccurate statement

After examining the EFSA 2009 review, it is clear, that the current statement "there is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk." on the evidence for A2 milk is inaccurate. It clearly lists A1 releases the BCM7 variant and not A2, further it states that this casomorphin can have an effect on digestion.

To summarise:

The report acknowledged that the bioactive peptide BCM7 is derived from cows’ milk:

• “This review recognises that proteins, including those present in the diet, are a potential source of a wide range of biologically active peptides, including some with affinity to opioid receptors. The latter are also known as opioid peptides. Opioid peptide sequences have been characterised in animal and plant proteins. To date much work has focused on characterising opioid peptides derived from milk proteins, in particular the caseins. Beta-casomorphins are a group of opioid peptides which can be released from β-casein. The β-casein derived peptide with the sequence Tyr60-Pro61-Phe62-Pro63-Gly64-Pro65-Ile66 is known as β-casomorphin-7” (P2)

The EFSA report also acknowledged the BCM7 is only released through the digestion of the A1 variant of beta-casein and not A2:

“In β-casein A1 and B variants histidine occurs at position 67 whereas in β-casein A2 proline is present in the same position. This genetic substation of histidine with proline has been reported to prevent the enzymatic hydrolysis of the peptide bond between the residues 66 and 67 in β-casein A2 thereby preventing the release of BCM7”

Amongst the conclusions, the report stated that casomorphins can have an effect on digestion:

“Food-derived peptides, including casomorphins, can have different effects in the intestinal lumen and the intestinal mucosa, such as regulatory effects on gastro-intestinal motility and on gastric and pancreatic secretion. More specifically, BCMs can interact with endogenous opioid systems in the gastrointestinal wall in neonates as well as in adults” (P42).

Therefore, taking the aforementioned into account, the statement should read along the lines of: "In 2009 EFSA acknowledged that there is a difference in digestion between the A1 and A2 protein"

Thoughts? Dreylax01 (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The article discusses the EFSA review already. None of the above invalidates the statement in the article, so my answer is no. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 09:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
the statement in the article is accurate. "can have" is very different than "does have" - the hype around A2 would have you believe that there are actual, known benefits. This is not true, per the most recent sources we have. Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
What about this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24986816? CubsThisYear —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A quick search on Google would disagree. To include an all inclusive statement as was included is baseless without a significant study to demonstrate it's conclusion which as far as I have been able to identify - does not exist. Additionally, this article should not specifically involve or refer to any specific company - A2-only milk is now produced by other companies, the comment about marketing is therefore both irrelevant and inappropriate. I have hence-force revised the statement. Aeonx (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Stating: "there is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk.", is not factually true - what is true is that there are only a few scientific studies to indicate that A2 milk has advantages over A1+A2 milk. It is not clear whether consense viewpoint on A2 milk states there are benefits or not; however I would suggest the consensus of articles leans towards A2 milk indeed providing benefits over A1+A2 milk for those that do exist. Consideration needs to be given to weighting of statements in this article. What is important to note is, like most new scientific studies and hypothesis, is that the research and scientific studies into this area is light, there are several studies which provide an indication that A2 milk provides benefits (or otherwise that the A1 protein is harmful); or that A2 is more natural for human consumption given that Human breast milk almost only contain the A2 protein. There are also some (even fewer) studies to indicate there is no correlation between A2 milk and certain diseases/conditions. In order to give WP:NPOV balance to the article, the fact SOME scientific evidence exists warrants mention, at the very least it is a minority viewpoint, if not now, the majority scientific viewpoint. Furthermore, the review conducted by EFSA in 2009 simply states that upto 2009, there was insufficient scientific literature to support any arguments for/against A2 milk. Stating that there is 101.167.224.99 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The article today states "Prior to 2009, there was little to no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk" so you're criticizing something that is not in the article. I just looked at the "post-2009 evidence" Some of it is not post-2009, and some of it is difficult to call "evidence" except in the broadest use of the term. I will delete that sentence, since it is misleading.
Also, if I remember correctly, this article had a paid editor working here. I'll just remind everybody that if you are being paid to edit here, you must read WP:Paid and report your employer, client, and other affiliations. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
If the statement by Smallbones about paid editing refers to me, he/she should know that I have previously made clear my paid arrangement with A2 Milk Company to expand what was a very poor article ended in September 2014. See Talk:A2 milk/Archive 2#COI. The article remains on my talk page and I have made a couple of minor edits since then. BlackCab (TALK) 02:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I'm more concerned however about all current editors being aware of the rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
If you mean me because I'm trying to remove the excessive bias in this article - I'm aware of the rules and have no employment nor interest nor clients in any A2 milk or milk-related business. I am simply a consumer whom was shocked at the incredible bias in the article. My involvement goes to the extent that I am a consumer of A2 Milk I've found it to be much better for my own person indigestion that regular milks. Aeonx (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Aeonx, do you understand the difference between causation and correlation? -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Do you want to add anything constructive to this talk/article or just flap around a bias POV? 22:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by Aeonx's comment that "this article should not specifically involve or refer to any specific company - A2-only milk is now produced by other companies". A2 milk exists and is sold only because the A2 Company of New Zealand patented a process to produce it and then subsequently licensed its production. The "Commercial production and sale" section charts its establishment as a commercial product and its subsequent growth and geographical spread, which is notable. The section is not promotional in its tone. BlackCab (TALK) 10:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have changed sentence two in the lead to accurately reflect the EFSA conclusions, and will now remove the drive by tagging to reflect that. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Stated Conclusions vs Wikipedia Editor Conclusions

How do you suppose "a detailed review of the available scientific literature that addresses possible health effects of β-casomorphins and related peptides, and in particular β-casomorphin-7 (BCM7), a peptide sequence present in the milk protein β-casein." which concludes "that a cause and effect relationship is not established between the dietary intake of BCM7, related peptides or their possible protein precursors and non-communicable diseases."

becomes: "A 2009 review by the European Food Safety Authority found no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk" A better sentence would be: "A review in 2009 by the European Food Safety Authority found that scientific literature had not established a link between consumption of A1 beta casein proteins present in milk and non-communicable diseases."

Essentially, what this review actually concludes is, that at the time of publishing, there was was insufficient scientific evidence to make any conclusions regarding BCM7 and non-communicable diseases. The review is by no-means all-inclusive that represents entire scientific consensus. It is's simply inappropriate to use a review to state false conclusions on A2 milk. There are many ways A2 milk may provide benefit over "normal milk" - and the review does not examine this.

The fact remains there is a scientific hypothesis, backed by several credible studies (as per the list below) and consumer experiences that suggest there are indeed benefits of A2-only milk compared to other milk. Why you and others are trying to eliminate this viewpoint I can only assume is due to personal opinions not facts and evidence. But the true fact remain it IS a valid viewpoint and ongoing scientific hypothesis. Currently the article reads that the A2 Milk is completely baseless without any evidence which is not true. Until it's fixed the article is simply bias and this should be reflected on the page using an appropriate tag such as Template:Unbalanced. Aeonx (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Aeonx's criticism of the distorted presentation of the EFSA's findings is valid. It's intriguing to follow the trail of statements in this article that refer directly to, and cite, the EFSA review of scientific literature.
1 March 2010: The body of the article read: Reviews of the A2 and BCM7 research have been published by the New Zealand Food Standards Authority, European Food Safety Authority. Both reports effectively state that there is "insufficient evidence" to prove that A1 milk BCM7 has a negative effect on health. [1]
13 June 2011: Wording was changed to read: A review of the relevant scientific literature by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), published in February 2009, found that "a cause and effect relationship is not established between the dietary intake of BCM7, related peptides or their possible protein precursors and non-communicable diseases". [2]
13 July 2014: Separate expanded treatment was given to the NZFSA, EFSA and Truswell reviews. In the case of the EFSA report, the existing wording was retained. [3]
13 July 2014: That wording, along with all of the completely rewritten and expanded article, was reverted. [4]
7 August 2014: An edit by Doc James changed this to read: There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk. A review by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) did not find a relationship between intake of milk protein and diseases. (Both sentences were sourced to the same EFSA study). [5]
18 August 2014: An edit by Jytdog changed this to read: While the company marketing A2 milk claims that milk containing A1 proteins are harmful, there is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk. A review by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) did not find a relationship between intake of milk protein and diseases. (Both sentences were sourced to the same EFSA study). [6]
20 December 2015: An edit by Aeonx changed this to read: Prior to 2009, there was little to no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk. However, some preliminary scientific studies demonstrate that A2 milk may offer some benefits, and indicate that milk containing the A1 protein may be harmful and result in milk intolerance. (The first sentence was sourced to the EFSA report). [7]
21 December 2015: Roxythedog changed this to read: While the company marketing A2 milk claims that milk containing A1 proteins is harmful, there is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk. [8]
21 December 2015: After another attempted revert by Aeonx, Smallbones changed this to read: A 2009 showed that there was little to no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk. (This was later modified to read: A 2009 review found little to no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk). [9][10]
Edits since the July 2014 version have very clearly misrepresented the EFSA review that has been cited as the source of those false statements. This fact supports the contention of Aeonx that some editors are displaying bias in their encyclopedic treatment of A2 milk. Some seem bent on portraying A2 milk in a negative light and the article has suffered as a result. BlackCab (TALK) 07:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The lede is meant to summarize the body, so to be neutral (not just to the EFSA source) I think we should be saying something like: "Many promotional health claims have been made for A2 milk, but these are not supported by good medical evidence". Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
As has been pointed out previously, evidence from scientific studies has supported some of the marketing claims. Some editors on this page, however, have set a very high bar in deciding whether those findings are actually "evidence" — although as in the case of the Rosemary Stanton comments (now removed) they were perfectly happy to set the bar very low in allowing derogatory comments in a newspaper article to remain. Who is the judge of what is "good medical evidence"? Findings firmly embraced by Keith Woodford are dismissed as trivial (or cranky) by some Wikipedia editors. Your suggested edit is therefore problematic. BlackCab (TALK) 08:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
To remedy the problem of the statement currently in the article that blatantly misrepresents the EFSA review it cites as a source, I would suggest this wording in the lead section: "The company marketing A2 milk claims that milk containing A1 proteins are harmful, but a 2009 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) review of scientific literature found there was "insufficient evidence" to prove that bioactive peptides in A1 milk have a negative effect on health." The sentence would cite the EFSA report as its source. Both parts of this sentence are indisputable, both address the health concerns over A1 milk and the implied benefits of A2 milk. If Aeonx can later provide material on scientific findings that gains consensus for approval, the sentence can be modified again. BlackCab (TALK) 01:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Jumbled-up order

Sorry, but this chain of edits has just made the article meaningless. The introduction makes no mention of the concerns that led to the creation of A2 milk; then the very first section header, "Health effects" launches into a detailed discussion of a review of "the scientific literature" (about what???) and suddenly says it's about BCM-7, with no explanation of what BCM-7 is. Only after six more references to BCM-7 does the article explain what BCM-7 is -- in another section of the article. Jesus. You're really doing your best to make this article incomprehensible -- and all without touching the blatantly false statement in the lead that "the European Food Safety Authority found no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk". BlackCab (TALK) 04:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The EFSA states "Based on the present review of available scientific literature, a cause-effect relationship between the oral intake of BCM7 or related peptides and aetiology or course of any suggested non-communicable diseases cannot be established." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Correct. So the new wording in the lead is accurate. But the issue I raised above remains. The article is now poorly constructed and imparts even less information to readers than it did. BlackCab (TALK) 08:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

FSA NZ and food-health relationship "notification"

There is a sentence stating that the company "notified" the FSA NZ about this "food health relationship", which seems to give the imprimatur of the FSANZ on that claim. However, FSANZ specifically states about these "notifications," FSANZ does not consider the merits of notified food-health relationships. Our role is limited to administering the notification process. Publication by FSANZ of a notification does not indicate acceptance or validation of the relationship. I suggest we remove that sentence until we can establish from a secondary source that this is significant. Yobol (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on A2 milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on A2 milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Poor source, plagiarism from it

this dif; introduced plagiarism from PMC 4586534. The content added from that latter source is an extensive quote (without quotation marks); the source itself is in a journal published by MDPI, a borderline predatory publisher. Please also note the conflicts of interest declaration by one of the authors of that review. The people who most strongly believe that A2 milk matters are the people who created it and make money off it; the rest of the world finds the evidence to be "meh" at best. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Per the CC BY 4.0 license the original must be cited but the text used does not need to be quoted.[11] So what was done is fully within copyright. Have not looked at the other concerns Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Didn't mention copyright. WP:Plagiarism is a matter of ethics and sound scholarship and is distinct from copyright matters. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not think it is plagiarism either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The a2 Milk Company is a strange fork from here.

I don't think that article should exist at all, and I'm sure there is a wikiterm to describe it (povfork?, coatrack?, promotional?) or just a duplication of content from here, plus some bits and pieces of marketingspeak.

Comments on my opinion? -Roxy the dog. bark 07:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dead on. The content about milk there was totally POV forked. I fixed it in this diff. The content about the company and its business otherwise is different stuff and fine there. Jytdog (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
As a2 Milk is a brand of The a2 Milk Company I see no difference between this and Coca-Cola being a brand of The Coca-Cola Company having separate pages. 125.255.82.94 (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, and that is now what we have with regard to A2 milk and the A2 milk company. -Roxy the dog. bark 23:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

capitalization

User:125.255.82.94 please explain your objection to the capitalization. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

a2 Milk is a trademarked brand of The a2 Milk Company and is represented by a lowercase "a". It's not to be confused with the A2 protein, as appears to have been the case and evidenced in the edit history. 125.255.82.94 (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This does not explain your objection to the capitalisation though. -Roxy the dog. bark 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:TM Wikipedia does not follow weird capitalization in company trademarks -- text from there copy/pasted here:
Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (But see exception below under § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.)
    • avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, The PLAYERS Championship
    • instead, use: Time, Kiss, Asus, The Players Championship (Capitalize IBM, IKEA, as initialisms.)
-- Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:TM there is an exception -- text from there copy/pasted here:
  • The exception is trademarks that begin with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter. These are often not capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules:
    • avoid: He said that EBay is where he bought his IPod.
    • instead, use: He said that eBay is where he bought his iPod.
125.255.82.94 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
In this case the company stupidly chose the name of the protein for its protein. I will go through and make sure that this is made clear in the article. We are not doing the company's branding work. This is an encyclopedia article not branded marketing material. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A2 milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Description of A2 milk

the horse is not just beaten to death, but in smithereens. A new thread can be opened if RS are ever brought. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The description of A2 milk as predominantly a2 is correct, but A1 must be excluded.

100% A2 is achievable, it simply a matter of getting all the cows producing A2. This usage is common. In personal communication with "Grinning Gecko" cheese, they are not claiming A2 as there are still some A1 cows in the herd. Therefore I will make a small edit to page. If others disagree, please give a reference to the usage of predominantly, as that is not my understanding of the term.

I hope that this distinction can be put into the description, somehow, to let the reader know that milk marketed as A2 has no A1, but may have other protein types like B. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits to WP must be based on, and must cite, what we call "reliable sources", described in WP:R. Personal communications are not RS. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Explanation was put in my edits today for support that a2 Milk is not "predominately" A2, is is in fact A1 free. This was reverted, including removal of the independent citations I posted by user:Andrewgprout. I would like to reach agreement that usage of "predominately" implies that there is the presence of A1 protein, which is not possible with genetic testing of cows to show they are A2/A2. I don't want to enter an editing war, however I feel his explanation is not correct. Marie3456 (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)marie3456
The citation you gave does not support your claim, (that a2 milk does not contain a1 protein), and your edit was properly reverted. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The citations show that independent testing can determine that Cows are tested for the A2/A2 gene and therefore are A1 free. Also, the statement that a2 Milk does not make the claim that a2 Milk is free of A1 protein is incorrect. It is misleading to write that a2 Milk contains "predominately" the A2 protein". That implies there is A1, which is not factually correct. "No A1 protein" is in fact a claim that a2 Milk makes (please see https://thea2milkcompany.com/about-us/about-our-milk/).
Copy: What makes our cows different?
It all starts with hand-picking the right cows. a2 Milk™ is a 100% natural fresh cows’ milk from specially selected cows, not a product of genetic engineering or a technological process.
We work with farmers to identify and select cows that naturally produce milk containing only the A2 protein, and is free from all A1 protein. We do this by using a non-invasive DNA test that analyses a strand of hair from the tail of each dairy cow – a process which we have developed and enhanced over the years.
Cows certified to produce milk with only the A2 protein are then segregated and milked separately to produce completely natural a2 Milk™ that’s full of nutritional goodness.
As Tony.wallace.nz notes above, there are no citations showing regular usage of the word "predominately". Marie3456 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)marie3456
Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • diff dealing with this issue. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The company has said to NZ regulators that it cannot guarantee zero A1 - saying that it contains only A2 is fraud unless you can provide a current high quality reference that supports this. The blurb from the website (which is not a reliable source, is cleverly worded - -sure A2 cows make only A2 milk. Please notice that in the last sentence they do not say the 100% anymore - of course the milk is "completely natural" but that is not saying "100% A2" . Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Having read Woodford's book, it is clear that the issue is whether there is a proline or histine at position 67 of the beta-casein protein. To quote from his book at page 39:

{{Quote text="So far I have only described the A1 and A2 beta-caseins. But there are also at least six minor variants of beta-casein called A3,B,C,D, E and F. Variants B,C and F all have histidine at position 67 and therefore can be expected to break down like A1. In contrast variants A3,D and E all have proline at position 67 and therefore hehave the same as A2 in relation to BCM7 release. So when we talk about A1 beta-casein this is really shorthand for the family of variants that act the same as A1, and when we talk of A2 it is shorthand fro the family of variants that act like A2.", title="Devil in the Milk", author="Woodford, Keith"}} Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't need a book by the person promoting A2 (whose claims have been refuted by the EFSA, which is a much more reliable source) to understand the biochemistry, and this source doesn't support the claim you want to make. This article is about a product on store shelves, not the stuff that comes out of a cow. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Jytdog. The stuff that comes out of the cow ends up in a store. The argument about A1 versus A2 milk is all about BCM7 which is claimed to harmful. If that point is missed then the whole article becomes meaningless. Indeed my point is borne out by the discussion on BCM7 later in the same article. Any A1 in milk is considered by many to be harmful, and quite frankly not fit for human consumption. Milk that is claimed to be A2 is not only A2, it can include A3,D and E variants, but it must not contain any of A1, B, C and F variants of beta-casein. This is the point of the patented tests, to isolate cows that only produce A2 type milk, and to select bulls that only contribute the genetics for A2 type milk. The description that you give "that mostly lacks a form of β-casein proteins called "A1"" is untrue.
As for not providing a 100% guarantee that there will be no A1 in A2 milk, that is just a normal commercial minimisation of liability. No software company will make a 100% guarantee that there software is bug free for instance. I still think your edits are unhelpful and misrepresent the situation. If a person wants a mix of A1 and A2 proteins then they can just buy normal milk. If they want to avoid A1 as much as possible they will buy A2.
As for Keith Woodford's claims being refuted by EFSA, that is untrue also. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You need a better source than the company itself saying to the NZ regulatory authority, after the authority cracked down it, that the company cannot guarantee that the milk it sells in stores is 100% A1-free. This is the sourced content in the body of the article now. Please provide such a source. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Some tests report the presence of A1 milk when it is in fact not there:
"I have seen later test results from Food Science Australia confirming this: the test gives false positives results that milk from pure A2 individual cows is only about 90% A2. As explained in Chapter 10 this is impossible: individuals can only be 0%, 50% or 100%." And later in the same paragraph "Indeed Dr Andrew Clarke from A2 Corporation says that at the time they were not even given the opportunity of presenting counter-evidence. Instead the Commerce Commission required them to change the labelling". [1]

References

  1. ^ Woodford, Devil in the Milk, Updated Edition page 189
-- Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
[12] is the edit Jytdog refers to. What is unclear about that? -Roxy the dog. bark 05:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Roxy. My last quotation answers that point. There is the issue of unreliable testing of the milk by the authorities, and the lack of due process by the Commerce Commission. As for an iron tight guarantee that not one single A1 cow ever got into a herd, it has to be admitted that such a thing could possibly happen by any one of a number of mechanisms from fencing to human error. Now how about proving that A1 milk does not cause heart disease and diabetes? Who decides where the burden of proof should be, and to what level of confidence? There is sound epidemiological evidence that A1 milk is likely poisonous. It has been found to get into the bloodstream of infants and cause developmental problems. If the authorities were concerned about human health they would be getting it out of our milk now. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
No, it does not. You are doing what we call WP:SYN which is a form of WP:OR. Again, bring a reliable source that says that A2 milk in stores is 100% A1 free. I will not respond to that issue here again, until you do. If you continue trying to force in unsourced, promotional content, you will end up blocked. There are polices and guidelines we follow here, and they apply to all of us.
With regard to health claims, those must summarize sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. Under that guideline, the EFSA source is the strongest source we have. Most of the health content is based on that source. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you have not checked my quotation and seen it in context. It is not WP:SYN, or WP:OR. It was addressing the point at hand, a claim by the commerce commission that A2 milk contains A1 type proteins. Are we agreed that this is the point we are discussing? Okay, maybe my quote should have been longer so that you could read it in context. I believe that we have a genuine misunderstanding here. So here is a longer quote from page 189.

"But Fonterra was not sitting back. It purchased some A2 milk processed by Klondyke Dairies which was labelled 'Just A2', had it tested in Australia and claimed that it contained some A1. It has been subsequently shown that the particular technique used (a CE test) is actually unreliable in regard to low-level contamination and regularly gives false positives, i.e. shows a small percentage of A1 when there is none. I have seen later test results from Food Science Australia confirming this: the test gives false results that milk from pure A2 individual cows is only about 90% A2. As explained in Chapter 10 this is impossible: individuals can only be 0%, 50% or 100%. But A2 Corporation and Klondyke Dairies could not guarantee at this time the milk was totally free of A1 milk, i.e. that there was no chance of there being a single A1 cow in the A2 herds. Indeed Dr Andrew Clarke from A2 Corporation says that at the time they were not even given the opportunity of presenting counter-evidence. Instead the Commerce Comission required them to change the labelling."

So what can we conclude, is there A1 milk in milk sold as A2? It does appear from this evidence that the Commerce Commission and Fonterra relied on unreliable data to make that assertion, and therefore the assertion that milk sold as A2 contains A1 protein is also unreliable. I am not doing WP:SYN or WP:OP, that is what my source says.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

We can note the dispute over the testing, but we have to lead with what meets WP:MEDRS and that's that A2 milk may contain some A1 protein. Bondegezou (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we agree that the presence of A1 type proteins in A2 milk is undesirable contamination?Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC) I would like to propose a new introduction to this article which I hope meets everyone's agreement. I believe we have agreement on the following: 1) Milk sold as A2 comes from cows selected to produce only A2 type milk. 2) These selection techniques are patented by A2 Corporation. 3) A2 type milk is milk that has a proline at position 67 of the beta-casein protein. 4) A1 type milk is milk that has a histidine at position 67 of the beta-casein protein. 5) The presence of A1 type milk in milk sold as A2 represents undesirable contamination. 6) Milk sold as A2 has been tested as containing A1 contamination, but there is dispute over the accuracy of that finding. 7) A1 type milk is regarded by some as undesirable due to the BCM-7 metabolite which has been implicated by epidemological research, but not proven to be harmful to human health.

I suggest the following introduction to this article.

A2 milk is milk from herds of cows selected to produce only A2 type milks, that is milk with a proline amino acid at position 67 of the beta-casein protein. In A2 milk the presence of A1 type proteins, that is milk with a histidine amino-acid at position 67 of the beta-casein molecule represents undesirable contamination. Independent testing of A2 milk has found evidence of A1 contamination but that evidence is disputed, however suppliers of A2 milk are unable to guarantee that A2 milk is entirely free of A1 type proteins. A2 Corporation holds intellectual property relating to the formation of herds of cows to produce A2 milk.

I hope this introduction meets everyone's approval with appropriate citations of course... Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly not support that intro, as the current one is far better, and conforms with P&G. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Please Roxy, be specific. The current introduction does not even define what A2 or A1 milk actually is. Which P&G are you referring to?Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles do not have "intros". The have "leads". There is a guideline about what the lead does, here at WP:LEAD. All the lead does, is summarize the sourced content that is in the body, giving WEIGHT as the body give WEIGHT. Also, please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay I get it. I am still not happy with that first sentence. If my partner was getting "Mostly A2" but still getting a significant quantity of A1 in her A2 milk she would be sick. Almost exclusively A2 would be nearer the mark. That is the whole point of herd selection and the genetic testing to get rid of A1 out the herd. Yes my partner is a real A1 milk detector, which has resulted us having to make almost everything from scratch I reckon she can detect about 20mg of A1 in a meal. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, everything here is driven by sources. If you can provide an independent (not from the company), reliable source about the percentages of A2 and A1 in the A2 milk sold in stores, that would be great. We can use that to add content to the body of the article, and then can update the lead, if necessary. For now I have added the notice from the NZ food authority as a redundant source for the 1st sentence, which is needed per LEAD since people keep contesting this summary of the sourced content in the body of the article. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a minor point. A2 Corporation does not sell in New Zealand.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC) And please get rid of that reference to the Commerce Commission, reference 1. It is unreliable and has been challenged at least as a reference for believing there is contamination of A2 milk. As a fact of history that it occurred there is no debate.118.149.249.116 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

We are not getting rid of a governmental authority statement. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Even if it is total shit?Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
If you can provide a reliable source saying it's total shit, we can include that. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi All. I am still unhappy with the first sentence of the lead. I suggest the following is accurate. I will be seeking mediation if we cannot come to an agreement. "A2 milk is milk from cows that have been bred or genetically tested to produce only A2 forms of beta-casein and not the A1 forms" <ref><http://www.google.com.pg/patents/US6570060/<ref>.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Patents are not reliable sources - they are specifically mentioned and described as unreliable in the section of the verify policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. There is nothing to mediate - you have not brought any independent reliable sources to support the content you want. What you (or I or anybody else) want has nothing to do with WP content. We follow reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The current lead is simply untrue. I am just trying to correct the article.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
See WP:The Truth. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay so you dispute what I just said. The problem is in fact definitional, if there is no agreement on defining of terms then there can be no rational debate. I suggest that the leading sentence for this article actually redefines A2 milk. Given its normal definition, not the one you have made up, the leading sentence misrepresents what A2 milk is. This is a standard technique used by religious cults, to redefine things to suit their perspective.03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony.wallace.nz (talk • contribs)
No, Tony, stop for a moment and listen to what is being said to you. Our opinions on things as editors of Wikipedia do not matter. What matters is what the sources say. The sources need to meet Wikipedia's verification, reliable source and due weight criteria. What we know to be true, or think we know, is entirely beside the point. - Nick Thorne talk 03:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
So if I can find some obscure government publication that says a car is a four legged animal that shits and gives milk then I can say that in a wikipedia article?Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I won't be responding further here until you bring an independent reliable source. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I know the last comment was strong but my point remains. Any source I point to gets challeged and yet you can use the commerce commission report as definitional in a way that I doubt even its authors envisaged.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Not some obscure government publication on its own, no. However, if an honest review of reliable sources found that view was that held by the majority of such sources then we would be constrained to say that (as you put it) "a car is a four legged animal that shits and gives milk" in accordance with the weight that view was expressed in the sources. Of course, that is never going to happen as it is ridiculous as you well knew when you wrote that nonsense. Your problem is that you have simply and abjectly failed to produce a single reliable source to back up your position. Patents are not reliable source because, apart form anything else, some absolute nonsense has been patented in more than one instance. The patent office does not check out that what is in the patent actually works or is true, only that no one else has patented the same thing. Now if you seriously want to change the article, you need to find reliable sources to support your position, otherwise please just STFU about it, - Nick Thorne talk 05:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Nick. I just had an update conflict as I was writing this:
I will continue to labour the point because I think it needs to be make. From a historical standpoint you could say that A2 corporation, or maybe the New Zealand Dairy Board "invented" A2 milk, in that they produced practical ways in which A1 producing cows could be excluded from milk. They protected their intellectual property with Patents and the like, but none of those are acceptable to wikipedia because they are not independent. They are not 3rd parties etc. If they cannot say what A2 milk is then who can?Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way what does STFU mean?Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
How about Woodford. Would he be regarded as reliable. From a personal perspective he is a respected an qualified academic. If anyone has the right to an informed opinion it would be him, I mean if you needed an "expert witness" in court, he would be your man. However because he wrote a book and expressed an opinion that was not main stream about the health effects of A1 milk then of course he is no longer regarded as reliable because of EFSA. The health effects of A1 and A2 milk are not the issue here. The problem I have is the definition in this article is simply not correct.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Forwarded message ----------

From: Keith Woodford <kbwoodford@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:30 PM Subject: Re: A1 percentages in A2 milk To: Tony Wallace <tony@tony.gen.nz>


Hello Tony Allmost certainly, the term 'A2 milk' was first used and thereby defined by the A2 Corporation, now called The a2 Milk Company, Hereafter I refer (for brevity) to this company as A2M

In my opinion, there is uncertainty as to whether 'A2 milk' can be considered a generic term. I lean to the perspective that 'A2 milk' is a generic term but that 'a2 milk' is effectively trade-marked. However, it is possible that the term 'A2 milk' may also be subject to a claim that it is effectively trademarked.

In contrast, terms such as 'A2 beta-casein' precede the formation of A2M and are clearly generic, Also the term 'A2 cows' can almost ceratinly considered generic. Accordingly, terms such as 'all our cows are A2' or 'our milk is free of A1 beta-casein' can be used by anyone as long as the statements are factually correct.

There is no doubt that A2M always considered that in a definitional context 'A2 milk' was milk free of A1 beta-casein. In the early days, any qualification around use of that term was limited to the possibilty that a rogue cow might get into a herd either by jumping a fence or through a testing error. I am aware that A2M regularly tests their milk to ensure there is no A1 beta-casein therein.

I have here at my home some milk powder from A2M. It says on the label, in large print, 'The milk that is ALL A2' (capitaisation as in the label).

On the back, in the detailed nutritional information it says 'BETA-CASEIN A1 ** ND and immediately below '** Not deteccted'.

The American fresh label says 'Only A2 protein from certified a2 cows'.

I do not have acess to A2 fresh milk but my recollection from a recent trip to Australia a few weeks ago is that there is now a statement on the label saying 'free from A1 beta-casein'.

Other websites such as 'healthline.com state that A2 milk is milk in which all the beta-casein is A2. And the A2M webstie itself is very explicit that A2 milk comes only from cows that are A2.

Accordingly, Wikipedia is very much out of line with usage eslewhere, and I regard their definitiional statement there as contradictory to their own standards. As a definitional statement they need to go with the accepted usage rather than making up their own definitions.

If they then want to cliam that any particular supplier does not live up to its own claims, then that is a separate matter and they would then need to present the current evidence.for such a claim. (There is no such evidence available.)

There is an interesting issue in Australia where Lion labels their milk as 'contains A2 protein'. But they do not call their milk 'A2 milk'. There is currently a case before the courts as to whether even the term 'contains A2 protein' is misleading advertising.

Regards Keith Woodford

Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

All this proves is that Keith Woodford does not understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doe not make up its own definitions, it simply reflects with relative weight what reliable sources say. Nothing above comes within coo-ee of a reliable source. It is all just assertions and opinions. - Nick Thorne talk 06:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay I give up. The inventor of A2 milk and the holder of the patents and trademarks A2 corporation is not a reliable source for what A2 milk is. (ref)https://a2milk.com/our-story/ (ref) The only "reliable source" is the commerce commission which botched the science and failed to follow due process. An expert in the area's opinion has no weight. My opinion of Wikipedia's editing policies at this point is simply unprintable.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
One last point. The lead sentence as is fails WP:SYN. If Commerce Commission found A1 protein in A2 milk, it does not change what A2 milk is (which is definitonal), rather it simply shows contamination. Please change the lead sentence.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, just bring a reference that satisfies Wikipedia's reliable source and verifiability requirements that states what you want to include. We don't make stuff up here on a whim, the current wording reflects what the source says. If there is a better reference that says something else then we will change the article to reflect that. Note that the RS policy states: Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. You claim that the Commerce Commission mucked up the science, then please show us the correct science, a peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable journal would at least be a start. - Nick Thorne talk 01:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What happened here?

A large amount of the above discussion appears to have disappeared between this diff and the next. The 2nd diff does not show this deletion - it does not look to me like the other editor deleted the text - but several days worth of discussion including the letter from Keith Woodford seem to have just vanished. Any ideas? (BTW I am not objecting to the close.) - Nick Thorne talk 06:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It was the ref markup in this diff I believe. actually went missing a while ago and none of us noticed! Thanks for noticing. Jytdog (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Question on use of source

Reference 2, page 20 is being used to verify this statement: "The A1 beta-casein type is the most common type found in cow's milk in Europe (excluding France), the USA, Australia and New Zealand." However, the reference contains no information that directly confirms this statement. There is a data table of cattle breeds, which have information on the genetic prevalence of the alleles for producing various β-casein proteins, rather than an analysis of the presence of the protein in the milk, and does not break it down by country in any meaningful way. I have flagged it as such. Can someone provide a better reference? If not, the statement needs to be removed. --Jayron32 13:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Health effects

The claim that the EFSA metastudy indicates the included studies could not be generalized to humans is not supported by the reference. The EFSA study states:

  • Conclusions on molecular interactions, general biological effects and fate of food-derived peptides
  • Animal data clearly support the idea that β-casomorphins, including BCM7, can act as opioid receptor agonists, probably acting via μ-type opioid receptors.
  • At a molecular level, in comparison to medicinal and endogenous opioids, bovine BCM7 does not seem to be a very potent opioid ligand.
  • Opioid effects were only observed in vivo in animal studies following intra-peritoneal (i.p.) or intra-cerebro-ventricular (i.c.v.) administration.
  • Relatively little is known on the mechanisms of transfer of intact peptides longer than 3 amino acids across the intestinal barrier; however, if this transport occurs, then the extent is very low and passive diffusion is the most likely transfer mechanism.
  • β-casomorphin immunoreactive material in blood has been reported in two studies within neonatal dogs and calves. However, the presence of β-casomorphin molecules in blood after intake of milk or casein has not been established in in vivo studies.
  • Opioid peptides, including β-casomorphin 4, -5 and -7 are highly sensitive to hydrolysis by dipeptidyl peptidase IV thereby strongly limiting or preventing the transfer of these peptides in an intact form across the intestinal mucosa and the blood-brain barrier.
  • Available data suggest that in principle, transport of food-derived peptides and proteins across the human intestinal mucosa is possible. However, quantitative data on this phenomenon are lacking. In certain cases such as in neonates and adults with specific diseases, intestinal permeability has been reported to be significantly increased."

It's more accurate to say the only studies which demonstrated opioid ligand activity from the peptides in question used ip or icv. Oral administration categorically did not demonstrate opioid effects in the relevant studies and it is seen as questionable that the peptides pass through the gut in most people regardless. The wording as is implies that the studies' demonstration of lackin evidence for the A1 health claims made by those marketing A2 milk is in question as a result of the ip and icv administration. -- (unsigned) 2017-09-02T20:24:05‎ by 2600:1002:b01b:5f9c:c173:9c9e:3ece:e540

Is there any updated studies? Jclaxp talk 13:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Explain your revert for the short description

Roxy the dog How can an article is acceptable and the short description is not complying the policyWP:PROMO[[13]]. And BTW who is we? Do not try to own it. You are simply a user like all of us. RememberWP:BRD RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

See here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Precisely this is what you need to learn. But you have not replied to all the questions. And make sure you will not use 'we.' Because it's not yours only. Understand?RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
RAJIV. Not really, no! Your english is so bad that I cannot understand what you mean. What do I need to learn? Which questions have I not replied to? Why should I not use "we"? You make no sense! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A2_milk/Archive_3&oldid=1140153274"