Talk:A2 milk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Description of A2 milk[edit]

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. (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
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 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"}} (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. (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]


  1. ^ Woodford, Devil in the Milk, Updated Edition page 189
-- (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
[1] 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. (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 (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? (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... (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? (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. (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 (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. (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? (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><<ref> (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 (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 (talkcontribs)
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? (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 (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? (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way what does STFU mean? (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 (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Forwarded message ----------

From: Keith Woodford <> Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:30 PM Subject: Re: A1 percentages in A2 milk To: Tony Wallace <>

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 ' 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 (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) (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 (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 (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?[edit]

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)