This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
My edit removing "This claim is not supported by research." was reverted. Two sources are provided in preceding paragraphs which support this claim. Roxy reverted this change with the argument that the EFSA report overules two small studies. However, by my eye, the EFSA report does not address lactose intolerance or increased digestibility of A2 milk. I reviewed the conclusions section of the EFSA report and also checked throughout the paper for mentions of "lactose", "intolerance", "intolerant", and a couple of other keywords.
Are you sure the EFSA report addresses the same subject matter as the two smaller studies? Even if the EFSA report does address lactose intolerance, I would argue that more nuanced language should be used as the smaller studies are more recent and their data was not included in the original EFSA report. Maybe something like "The validity of this claim has not been definitively determined."
It seems quite strange to have an entire paragraph citing evidence that a claim is true followed by a single sentence saying that there is no evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.132.202.146 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]