Talk:A2 milk/Archive 1

Page title
I just noticed the inconsistency between the title of this page and that of A1: this page is A2 milk, whereas A1 is A1 (milk). I think either is ok, but for consistency they should both be the same. Unless anyone responds otherwise, I will move A2 milk to A2 (milk) shortly. Thejesterx 03:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I guess this should stay as "A2 milk" since the A2 Corporation's trademark is for "A2 milk". Guess the page names are the best how they are. - Thejesterx 09:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy?
I find the lack of any mention of conflict or controversy in this article disturbing. The claims about the possible effects of A1 milk and hence the reason for testing for A2 are not mentioned nor is the rebutal of such claims mentioned. Reading this article I wouldn't even suspect that this is a controversial subject. The whole point of A2, and its scientific validity or not, is missed. A naive reader would be misled. Why is the information in the external links not being included in this article? SmithBlue (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (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)

POV
I believe the A2 corporation is only active in New Zealand. A2 milk is not a brand (although in New Zealand it may be). A1 and A2 are genetic variants. If I have a backyard cow it is either A1/A1, A1/A2, or A2/A2; if the last, then my milk is A2 although it is my own and not purchased under some brand name.

The primary focus of the article should be on the genetic difference and its effects, which is of interest to everyone who consumes milk anywhere in the world; not on the trademark rights of a company operating in a limited area.

The research is complicated because little data is available for milk consumption segregated by milk type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianiline (talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, totally agree with this. Upon googling more on this there's a book on the subject - Devil in the Milk, which states - "Milk that contains A1 beta-casein is commonly known as A1 milk, whereas milk that does not is called A2. Originally all milk was A2 until a mutation affecting some European cattle occurred some thousands of years ago. Herds in much of Asia, Africa and parts of southern Europe remain naturally high in A2 cows. A2 milk from selected cows is now marketed in much of Australia, and in parts of the USA and New Zealand." So the focus of this article should definitely shift to genetic differences and its effects. Also suggest to rename article to 'A1/A2 milk'. --Aghors (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This article belongs under milk/health/controversies and should act as a flag or warning that A2 is simply a branded genetic subset of milk which is getting a major marketing push by corporates with a vested interest in brand take-up. Of interest is precisely that market share increase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.113.185 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to be advertising or propaganda on behalf of the A2 Corporation, creators of this product, A2 milk. Also, the facts in the article are contentious, for example see. I think that unless this page can have informative, NPOV content about this product, it should be deleted as advertising. See also A1 (milk) Thejesterx 14:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I created the article after reading about it myself, and found a fair few articles about it strewn over the web. Feel free to change it to whatever you feel is non-biased. Perhaps only referencing the NZFSA reviews would remove bias?

64.39.127.214 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think what made me feel this wasn't NPOV enough when I read it is that it doesn't mention enough that A2 milk is a product (not really a type of milk), and that the research and benefits of it are contentious. If I get a moment, I'll read more of those external links you gave, and see if I can expand it a bit.  You ever tried the stuff? - Thejesterx 18:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't tried it yet as they don't seem to sell it in North America (as far as I can see). I find it an intersting possible health issue worth investigating further. Do you write many articles? This was actually my first, along with the short A1 (milk) stub I wrote, which likely needs improving upon as well. Perhaps including this article into something else like "Negative_health_effects_of_milk" (which I dont even know if it exists) would be a better course of action?

64.39.127.242 21:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I think this topic does deserve its own article, but if theres some article relating to the negative health effects of milk, it should should definitely link to this one. To make this article more NPOV I think it should -
 * Emphasise the fact that this is a product, developed by the A2 Corporation, and therefore much of the information about it should be considered advertising and treated skeptically
 * Talk about how the benefits of A2 milk are not proven, for example as talked about in A Brief Inspection of A2 Milk
 * At the moment, it seems to be overly extolling the virtues of A2 milk, without looking at the different sides of the story. -  Thejesterx 02:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears A2 Corporation doesn't actually sell the milk, they sell a test to identify which protein the cow produces. They license companies to produce it from cows which are identified with maximum A2 protein.

69.12.136.96 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah yeah, I see what you mean, thanks for noticing that. The name of the company actually selling the milk here is 'A2 Australia Pty Limited', and they call their product "a2 milk" - they've just licensed the logo from A2 Corporation.  I just don't think A2 milk is really a "type of milk", its a trademark of the A2 Corporation which they license to milk distributors to apply to their milk, and I think the article should reflect this somehow.  I'll try and phrase it more accurately.  -  Thejesterx 09:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done, the page now looks truly professional. Thanks for the input.

69.12.136.96 04:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm concerned the article gives a lot of weight to the idea milk with predominantly A1 β-casein is harmful without making it clear most independent reviews have found the evidence is too weak to support the conclusion e.g. http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/policy-law/projects/a1-a2-milk/ Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarification, I was thinking of . The current version is better. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We should include at least an overview of the references to the research showing the adverse effects of cow milk (in general) starting with T. Colin Campbell's well-known work. I can work on this at some point down the road. --Russmcb (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I made some big changes. I think we can get rid of the POV hatnote now Bhny (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * no disagreement, so I'll remove it Bhny (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Reasons to UNDO edits

 * Jmh649 and Bhny Kindly explain the reasons why you Undid my edits.Valid reasons to Undo EACH of my contributions would be appreciatedSrisharmaa (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A1 milk is proved to create health hazards like ... this isn't true. As someone already explained on your talk page-
 * Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database
 * Bhny (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. And linking this topic on major medical pages is not appropriate as there is in fact no evidence based link. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have provided enough links for evidences.Did you check the external links?.Linking in pages that are related and which are the  consequences of not using a2 milk IS sensible!Srisharmaa (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Start with providing references to published sources. Wikipedia is a place to share what has been published by reliable sources. You asked why your edits are being undone and it is because you are not providing quality references for your information.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Separate Article for "A2 milk brand" of A2 Corporation required
This article is NOT about A2 milk brand of a2 corporation.A new article needs to be created as "a2 milk brand".Luckily,A2 corporation has branded the A2 Type of milk as "a2 milk".This article should NOT be about the "a2 milk brand" of "a2 corporation" but about the "A2 milk" type in general."A2 milk Type" and "a2 milk brand" of a2 corporation are different and should to be as separate Articles.Srisharmaa (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure and this article is not about the brand. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure there should be a wiki article on A2 Milk in the first place, but to propose a second one is going a little too far. Roxy the dog (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can separate A2 from the brand. A2 isn't some well known scientific term. It seems to be a marketing term Bhny (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me know why you say "A2 milk" as a marketing term.To differentiate the most common A1 milk,people call it as A2 milk.I have already said marketing brands about a2 milk need to be removed OR shifted( which confuses "A2 milk type" with "a2 milk brad") to a new article if required.I cannot help further to make people understand the basic differences!.Srisharmaa (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We have already had some spam problems, and notability is borderline - two separate articles is a step too far, I think, and it would raise the possibility of a pov-fork. bobrayner (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"A1 milk" page should not redirect here
A1 milk is different from A2 milk."A1 milk" page should not be redirected to "A2 milk" page.Srisharmaa (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure a slightly different protein, both can be discussed together though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Due to difference in protein they cannot/should be as one article.There is a sea difference between these two milk types which are of great concern for health-conscious people.There need to be more information added to these articles on A1 and A2 milk.Unfortunately,some editors do NOT allow such progress in some Wikipedia Articles!.Srisharmaa (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources says that their is not evidence to support a health difference. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise please provide a ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let us give a break to the health controversies as of now.A1 milk and A2 milk are different in many aspects.Do you think A1 and A2 to be the same to be discussed under a same article?.Srisharmaa (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the only article that mentions 'A1 milk' so of course it should redirect here, where else could it redirect? Bhny (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A new article on "A1 milk" should be recommended.I have submitted a "A1 milk" article for approval.So it should not redirect here after the approval of "A1 milk" article.Srisharmaa (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so we agree that it should redirect here until or unless there is a better place for it to redirect to. Bhny (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"See also"s that should link here
This is part of a discussion with Srisharmaa regarding which other articles should "See also" link here. Originally, Srisharmaa had added over two dozen See also links to here, and several editors did not find that to be the right thing. So I wanted to discuss what would be an appropriate See also list here (seems like a central location) so that we can get consensus for it. First, in general I do not think See alsos are very useful. Anything that might be in a See also should really be as a wikilink within sourced article content. If an article does not have sourced content regarding a topic, that is a good indicator it is not closely related enough to put into a See also. So, the first choice is to modify the related articles to include relevant sourced content that mentions A2 milk and wikilink it. The question would be, which are the appropriate articles to do that for. Here's my proposed list of articles that should have sourced content related to A2 milk, wikilinked here: Until the articles can be updated with appropriate sourced content and wikilink, a See also can be added. Sound good? Any argument for a larger or smaller list? 16:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Milk
 * Dairy cattle


 * A1/A2 is about casein proteins. It really should only link from articles about casein. There's already a link from the casein article- Casein Bhny (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent research
Possibly relevant research cited here, some from recent months (as of early 2014): http://keithwoodford.wordpress.com/category/a1-and-a2-milk/ - from the author of Devil in the Milk. On the one hand he's a scientist (and co-authored some of the research), but on the other he does seem motivated to confirm his hypothesis, so I don't know how objective he can be. --Chriswaterguy talk 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems interesting, but we can't use his blog as a source, and the actual study is a primary source- WP:PRIMARY, so it is not good to use that either. If the paper gets written about in a reliable source then we can use that. Bhny (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent bold edit
A lot of material was recently added and I reverted with the hope of discussing it here. There still seems to be no consensus that A2 milk is somehow better than A1, and no official opinion recommending one over the other. There a few papers but these are wp:primary and not good a source. There is also the "Devil in Milk" which probably is useless as a source. Anecdotes of course shouldn't even be mentioned. Bhny (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will reinstate this. The article is now based on far more than a primary source. It covers the whole issue of A2 milk, which has been the subject of numerous scientific studies (cited) and news articles (cited). BlackCab  ( TALK ) 02:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment that "There still seems to be no consensus that A2 milk is somehow better than A1" is entirely irrelevant to the notability of the subject. Nor is the lack of an "official opinion", whatever that might be. Your edit summary states: "Much of this "evidence" is from a single book, anecdotes or primary sources," which is quite an astonishing error. There is a single anecdote (from the dairy farmer); the "primary sources" may refer to the scientific papers, which are appropriately cited. At a rough count there are 41 news reports cited in the article from Australia and New Zealand, indicating the range of media coverage. Your dismissal of Devil in the Milk as a "useless" source is also intriguing. It was published by a respected publisher and clearly meets the standard of a reliable source. The book has also been widely cited in news media and Woodford has been widely quoted in news articles and TV programmes on the issue. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 02:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There still seems to be no consensus that A2 milk is somehow better than A1 is obviously extremely relevant to the article. Why are you bringing up notability? The section A2 milk digestive benefits is mostly anecdotes. Also the normal way WP:BRD works is that you leave the revert until things are discussed.Bhny (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article very clearly addresses the ongoing debate on whether A2 milk is better than A1, and if so in what ways. Your initial comment seemed to suggest that the lack of a definitive answer was reason to revert to what is very clearly an inferior article: it was poorly sourced, contained inadequate discussion of the history of the A1/A2 debate, the emerging scientific findings and claims or acknowledgment of the market share the A2 milk product now commands in Australia. The expanded version contains all of the content of the original article, plus vastly more material from a vastly wider range of sources.
 * You are correct that the "digestive benefits" section contains a brief amount of anecdotal material. It is clearly labelled as such, and has been drawn in its entirety from news reports from multiple sources, so they are not anecdotes from primary sources.
 * If you have concerns about other content of the material, please raise them. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 05:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD you should have got consensus before putting your material back. I can't see any. More importantly, the whole framing of the new article makes it appear that the science behind the claims around a2 milk is settled, which is far from true. Frankly, it is going to take a while to try to get a handle on it, but I will certainly be reading again and again. I am also aware of a famous case report that appears to be missing from your sources, called something like "Whey Consumption Has Been Linked To Arachnophobia In Paediatric Subjects." It may be a little old to qualify as WP:MEDRS but has equal validity to the book that appears to be the main source for the new article. (Does anybody have a copy of this report or know the author and publication history? Thanks.) While I appreciate the effort that has gone into writing this new piece, please do not revert it back in again until there is broad agreement. There isn't any rush. Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

BlackCab, while it is clear the hours you must have spent putting this research together, it does not appear to be from a neutral point of view. Health information on Wikipedia needs to be backed by reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Primary sources are not enough to make health claims. Already linked a few times above, please have a read of WP:MEDRS. We need to get a consensus here on the talk page before reinstating the material. Currently I feel it needs to be reworked, removing the poor sources and made to be representative of the mainstream scientific opinion (as suggested by a few commentators already, may be that there is no consensus that A2 milk is superior. 188.30.205.201 (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you identify parts of the article that breach WP:NPOV? I have written it to completely comply with Wikipedia policy on editorial neutrality.
 * The article does not state, and cannot state, that A2 milk is superior to A1. Nor does the article attempt to provide medical advice. On a sales basis, A2 has become a leading milk type in Australia and it has subsequently gained extensive media attention; the article liberally uses those media articles as sources. The article explains the key difference between A1 and A2 milk and details the claims made about it, both scientific and anecdotal, that have led to increasing numbers of dairy herds in both Australia and New Zealand being converted to solely A2. The original article had minimal information, was a hodge-podge of random, poorly explained facts and was poorly sourced. It deserves much better.
 * The primary medical sources cited, which are almost all from peer-reviewed journals, exist in the article only as links to confirm their authenticity. In each case Woodford's book, or news articles, are added as secondary sources. They form the basis of the chronological listing of scientific findings which have gradually helped focus on the possible benefits of A2 milk over A1 milk.
 * I'm intrigued by the suggestion it contains "poor sources" that need to be removed. Can those poor sources please be identified? BlackCab  ( TALK ) 10:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And forgive me, I have only just grasped the deep sarcasm of Roxy the dog's sneering comment about arachnophobia. The author of the Devil in the Milk book is Professor Keith Woodford, identified in the (now reverted) article as Professor of Farm Management and Agribusiness at Lincoln University in New Zealand. He has been widely interviewed by newspapers including the Christchurch Press and New Zealand Herald  and Australia's state-owned ABC TV network . He featured prominently in the story by the Melbourne Age and Sydney Morning Herald  examining dairy giant Parmalat's campaign against A2. When the European Food Safety Authority began examining literature on A1 milk, they were urged by the chief executive of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority to read Woodford's book. (See ). I note Roxy the dog's antipathy to "lunatic charlatans": I have yet to see anyone, including the dairy industry giants, refer to Woodford in such terms.  BlackCab  ( TALK ) 12:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any health claims supported by wp:MEDRS? If there is a health claim and the source is not MEDRS, it would be a "poor source". Anecdotal claims such as Goodyer's would not be MEDRS even though she is a dietician. A double blind study is needed to eliminate human bias. Jim1138 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The question that interests me more is, why was all of this strictly non-biomedical information (e.g., when different companies went bankrupt) blanked, despite being properly sourced to the kind of WP:Reliable sources that are widely accepted in articles about business products? The type of source that you need to talk about sales figures is the same regardless of whether the product is fancy milk or fancy shoes.
 * I've restored a fair bit of the business-related content, but a more detailed assessment of the rest (that is, one that goes paragraph by paragraph, rather than mass blanking) would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Answer to Jim1138's query is below. WhatamIdoing is correct that much of the article does not contain science/medical issues and easily meets Wikipedia standards for neutrality and RS. That's discussed below as well. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 02:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just discovered Bhny's post at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. He has now raised my edit at two noticeboards, in neither case notifying me, where he is clearly canvassing support for his stand. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 11:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BC, an editor of your long standing and experience really ought to know that Bhny is using both noticeboards for their intended purpose. To accuse him of canvassing is quite inappropriate. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:CANVASS: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent." How else would I interpret the language in this post? BlackCab  ( TALK ) 12:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would you think adding "weird marketing gimmick promoting the supposed health effects of this milk" to WP:FT/N would be "canvassing"? As there doesn't seem to be any MEDRS, that would put A2 well within the realm of WP:FRINGE. Adding health claims w/o MEDRS would justify it being brought up on FT/N. If you would add some MEDRS, then we could stop all this. Jim1138 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. I was actually waiting for some feedback on my comments below. I'll gradually feed some of the material back in, rewritten where necessary and see how we go. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 21:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple of changes...
I've made a couple of (fairly minor) edits to the #Criticism and controversy section. First, the Parmalat issue was mentioned twice, which seemed fairly redundant. What wasn't redundant, though, was the basis on which Parmalat felt criticism of their rival was justified. So I added specific quotes from the CEO (who I assume is the Australian CEO) outlining his company's view of his rival's product. It seems fairly unusual for a CEO to outright attack another brand or product and it gives some context to the later section about Parmalat. In that later section I've stylised Crosby|Textor properly and have added links to the various papers. I've also removed some of the repeated information and a claim about "taking market share" that seemed to be a synthesis of what was presented in that source. Happy to discuss.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The introductory couple of pars in "Criticism and controversy" were more appropriate for the original length of that section, which was fairly heavily trimmed when it was reinstated. I'm intending taking the NZ Safety Authority review into the science section (which is also yet to be reinstated), so the upshot may be that the introduction to that section can be eliminated entirely and the references to Lion's rebranding of Pura milk possibly added as a final section under "Commercial production and sale" -- even though it's not A2 milk per se. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 08:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, without going back through the history I assumed it had evolved that way rather than having been written that way.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

BlackCab statement on extensive rewrite
My edit of the article here contained a five-paragraph lead section plus five other sections that dealt with: In writing this article I have endeavoured to provide broad coverage of why (including scientific claims) the product exists, the difference between A1 and A2 milk, and its rapid rise in popularity in Australia to command a sizeable market share. The lead section summarises those issues, although I concede MEDRS would require the first paragraph to be rewritten. My edit addresses the multitude of tags this article has (see categories at the foot of talk page) for inadequacies in coverage, structure and references. With regard to the science content, I note that MEDRS states that the “ideal” is for secondary sources including reviews in reputable medical journals. Of the 11 research works I included: In summary, I believe the “Background” section is uncontroversial, factual and balanced and can safely be reinstated. With the addition of secondary sources noted above, and a rewrite to note the views of the respective reviewers, the entire “Early discoveries” section of the “Health concerns” could be reinstated to document the history of A2 milk. I am happy to engage in further discussion over the “Digestive benefits” section. BlackCab ( TALK ) 01:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Background (a brief explanation of  the makeup of milk, an explanation of BCM7 peptides and the variance among cattle of the beta-casein protein.
 * Health concerns over A1 beta-casein. This is essentially a history section that traces, in chronological form, the origin and development of health concerns about A1 milk that led to the development of commercialised A2 milk. This section contains the findings of 11 separate research projects, 10 of which contain links to the published reports. I concede I had not previously read WP:MEDRS (my previous work in Wikipedia has centered on areas of music, history, road infrastructure and religion) and I acknowledge the problem raised by referring to many of these reports. I will return to this below.
 * A2 milk digestive benefits. This section is drawn almost entirely from news media, which has given extensive coverage to claims by consumers who have previously suffered from digestive problems when drinking normal milk but can safely and comfortably consume A2 milk. This section contains four paragraphs and reading them again I would readily delete the final two, neither of which deal directly with digestive benefits. I will return to this below.
 * Commercial production and sale. This section charts the history of the arrival on the retail market of A2 milk internationally, its market growth in Australia and a comment sourced to the company on the demographic of the typical consumer. It is comprehensively sourced, contains no medical claims and should therefore attract no objection to its inclusion in the article. (I note that it has now been restored to the article.)
 * Criticism and controversy. MEDRS states that controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. This section deals with three reviews of scientific findings – by the NZ Food Safety Authority, Professor Stewart Truswell and the European Food Safety Authority. It also deals with controversies over two of these reviews, both of which received extensive media publicity in New Zealand and Australia. It also presents the view of Dairy Australia, which dismisses claims about A1 health concerns, and contains coverage of the Parmalat paid media campaign against A2 milk, which again received widespread media coverage. It concludes with a court penalty laid against a Queensland A2 marketer over a 2004 advertising campaign: this conviction is frequently cited in media articles about A2 milk. (This section has also been restored).
 * Two (McLachlan, Laugesen & Elliott) were cited and discussed by both Swinburn and Truswell in their reviews;
 * One (Campbell/Tailford) was cited and discussed by Truswell alone in his review;
 * One (Cade) was cited and discussed by EFSA alone in its review. All of these warrant inclusion in the article.
 * The patent applications with associated science findings were reported by Truswell.
 * In addition an article in the Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism contains a brief review of research comparing aspects of A1 and A2 milk. This also cites and discusses three of the above studies. MEDRS states that primary sources may be used as an adjunct to a secondary source.
 * None of the references in the A2 milk digestive benefits section are MEDRS. As this section is a health claim, it needs to be cited with MEDRS. A MEDRS cite would be a proper study performed and the results published in a reliable peer-reviewed scientific journal. Anecdotal evidence reporting often uses cherry picked data and is notoriously unreliable. This section should not be replaced without MEDRS citations. Avoid weasel worded workarounds as well. Jim1138 (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the A2 milk digestive benefits section is terribly sourced and has no weight to be mentioned. Reporting anecdotes in articles is completely against WP:MEDRS. People can keep their anecdotes for the astrology blogs, Second Quantization (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware that my case report referred to in an earlier post had a) a very small sample size, and b) didn't attempt to address the confounding factor of simultaneous curd consumption, so I'm not sure the science is settled on this one. I withdraw my request for a copy of said report. Consider it an off the tuffet remark. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll drop the "Digestive benefits" section. No argument there, and thanks for your input. I'll concentrate on ensuring the "Background" section is fully compliant and look again at the first part of the "Health concerns" section; I suspect the second half of "Health concerns" won't be salvageable. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 23:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: BCM7
I have serious concerns about parts of the #Background section which are far from being "uncontroversial, factual and balanced" and I don't think you should have blindly reverted its exclusion. The section...


 * ...would need incredibly strong MEDRS sourcing. From my reading, your biomedical suggestion is A1 = BCM7 = morphine, the obvious conclusion being that "A2 milk is better because it isn't morphine". That sort of claim needs much better sourcing than the (very fringe) Woodford book which suggests A1 is "linked to autism and schizophrenia".  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair point, though it leaves the issue of BCM7 unexplained as is. The research that zeroed in on the A1 beta-casein as a cause of adverse effects was in fact less about the protein and more about the peptide (BCM7) produced in the process of digestion. My preference would be to add a "citation needed" rather than remove it, but I'll endeavour to find a sound source for that within the next 24 hours. I'm working my way through the science section that hasn't been reinstated to the article to bring the medical sourcing up to an acceptable standard. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 07:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding your disapproval of my "blindly" reverting that section, the very point of this thread was to signal my intention and seek feedback. Two editors offered their thoughts; there was no response from two other editors who had pushed for a BRD process. Not unreasonably, I assumed there was no objection to that section. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 09:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BC, I don't think you should worry about what appears to be just part of the normal process of improving an article by interpreting that process as criticism of yourself. Please don't take it personally, I am certain that it isn't. Comment on Woodford's rather wild suggestions is only to be expected. I expect more. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At this stage, BCM7 isn't mentioned in the background section for it to be later missed. I have no objection to a mention of it (provided such a mention is neutral and properly sourced) but I don't think there is any immediate issue with it being left out until we can get it right. I understood your intention but you started your opening remarks by suggesting you were going to reinstate that section, prior to anyone having commented. I understand there was previous discussion but my point was that there seems to have been objections to a few sections and I was extending those to that part of that one. I have no real concerns with the rest of it. I'm encouraged by your want to go back and work on the sourcing.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Responding to User:Stalwart111's misgivings re BCM7: I'll note a few sources here, with quotes, and add a further citation at that point in the article.
 * Professor Boyd Swinburn, "Beta casein A1 and A2 in milk and human health -- report to New Zealand Food Safety Authority", 13 July 2004, Executive summary, page 3: "It is known that A1 β-casein is cleaved enzymatically in the gut to produce a molecule (β casomorphin-7 which has some morphine-like actions in the body and it is postulated that this may influence the immune surveillance. A2 β-casein, the other main casein variant, does not undergo this cleavage and is not implicated in the disease process."
 * AS Truswell, "The A2 milk case: a critical review" (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2005) 59, 623-631,  pages 623-624: "A bioactive seven-amino-acid peptide, β-casomorphin-7 (BCM-7) can be released by digestion in the small intestine of A1 β-casein with pepsin, leucine aminopeptidase and elastase but the alternative proline at position 67 prevents a split at this site." (The proline appears at position 67 in A2 milk).
 * "Review of the potential health impact of β-casomorphins and related peptides," EFSA Scientific Report (2009) 231, 1-107 . The summary on page 2 similarly discusses BCM7, an "opioid peptide which can be released from β-casein. It too notes the critical difference of the amino acid at position 67 (proline or histadine) which dictates whether BCM7 is released or not. On page 34 it notes: "Opioid receptors derive their name from the classical effects of the active ingredients of opium, in particular morphine and its derivatives."
 * BP Mishra et al, "Status of milk protein, β-casein variants among Indian milch animals," Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 79 (7): 722-725 July 2009 : "A bioactive seven-amino-acid peptide called β-casomorphin-7 (BCM-7) is released in the small intestine by digestion of A1 β-casein milk while proline in A2 milk at position 67 prevents a split at this site. The bioactive peptide BCM-7, a strong opioid, is released in-vitro by the successive gastrointestinal protelytic digestion of beta-casein A1 and B but not by A2."
 * Margit Hamosh, Matthew Hong, Paul Hamosh, "Beta-Casomorphins -- milk β-casein derived opioid peptides," chapter 15, Textbook of Gastroenterology and Nutrition in Infancy edited by E. Lebenathal, Raven Press, NY, 1989, pg 145: "In a study to assess the release of β-casomorphins from bovine milke in the human, healthy adult volunteers ingested 1 liter of milk, followed by timed collections of intestinal aspirates. Considerable amounts of β-casomorphin-7 precursor ... were detected in the intestinal contents at 30 to 150 min after ingestion of milk. In vitro studies that mimicked the gastric and intestinal phases of digestion showed very little β-casomorphin-7 and no smaller peptide β-casomorphins produced in the gastric phase and large amounts of β-casomorphins-4, -6 and -7 produced in the intestinal phase ... Casein-derived peptides, such as β-casomorphin-5, influence the peristaltic activity of the ileum. The opiod agonists act to decrease peristalsis, an effect blocked by naloxone .... Thus, the β-casomorphins act like other opiates to decrease gastrointestinal motiliuty and secretory function."
 * Stanislaw Kaminski, Anna Cieslinska, Elzbieta Kostyra, "Polymorphism of bovine beta-casein and its potential effect on human health" (review article), Journal of Applied Genetics 48(3) 2007, pp 189-198: "Abstract: Proteins in bovine milk are a common source of bioactive peptides. The peptides are released by the digestion of caseines and why proteins. In vitro the bioactive-beta-casomorphin 7 (BCM-7) is yielded by the successive gastrointestinal proteolytic digestion of bovine beta-casein variants A1 and B, but this was not seen in variant A2 ... BCM-7 was first isolated as a peptide having morphine-like activity in 1979. This bioactive peptide exhibits a strong opioid activity ..."
 * That last review, incidentally, examines previous research linking BCM7 with ischaemic heart disease, SIDS, autism and schizophrenia (claims described on this page and elsewhere as "fringe") and describes those possibly links in its conclusion as "very intriguing and interesting for basic as well as application studies ... it is necessary to continue research into the role of BCM7 .... if the hypothesis of undesirable role of A1 beta-casein is confirmed, consumers may wish to reduce or remove this allele from their diet." The repeated suggestion on this talk page that Woodford is indulging in "very fringe" science, making "rather wild suggestions", seems rather astray. It has clearly become accepted science that the BCM7 peptide from A1 milk is released during digestion and that this does not happen with A2 milk, which is what Woodford reports. I have a bunch of other studies (primary sources admittedly) that also nonchalantly refer to the release of the BCM7 peptide during digestion of caseine. I think it's time to temper the attacks on the Woodford book. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 01:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Au contraire BC, your last three sources only confirm how far Woodford is on the fringe, as these conclusions do not support Woodford's. To try to take the giant step from the findings you have outlined above to claims of normal milk being unhealthy is not acceptable. In our terms, it is WP:OR and we should not frame Woodford as being anything more than an informed speculator, for speculation and drawing unsupported conclusions is what he has done. The Riley and Condron statements that you have put in the Dairy Australia section are much closer to the scientific mainstream that wikipedia should frame its articles from. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with your assessment of those sources and their conclusion with regard to Woodford's claims. Restoring those claims because you believe you have found strong enough sourcing (when others have disagreed but you are yet to address those concerns) is not appropriate. I understand you have a commercial interest in seeing this article developed in a particular manner but we volunteers are in no such rush. Simply posting your list of sources and declaring them sufficient is not the same thing as WP:CONSENSUS. I've reverted your restoration of that section and my concerns remain as above. I imagine Roxy the dog feels the same. I'll happily accept that part of the problem is that those claims are inevitably tied to Woodford's and that his fringe-dwelling does little to build confidence in those who came before him and after him.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The three secondary sources I have provided in the article have nothing to do with Woodford, who no longer appears as a source for that material. Roxy's comments do not dispute that those secondary sources support the three sentences I reinstated; he continues to be fixated with Woodford. You requested "incredibly strong MEDRS sourcing". I have provided that for what seems to be accepted science: digestion of A1 milk produces BCM7. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 01:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, seems to be, but nobody got a chance to review them. Your own most recent contribution to this discussion came with the edit summary, "Woodford's "very fringe" and "rather wild suggestions" seem to be ... well, taken seriously." so Roxy isn't the only one still focused on Woodford. Without any further discussion, you reinstated those lines. I still have significant concerns about describing non-A2 milk as having "opioid or narcotic properties" in Wikipedia's voice without further explanation of what we mean. And it still does require exceptionally strong MEDRS sourcing and (again) none of us have had a chance to review what you have put forward.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In the interest of not being obstructionist (because that is certainly not my intention), I'm going to ping Bhny, WhatamIdoing, Jim1138, and Second Quantization who have each commented on MEDRS here. My hope is that they will be able to contribute to an assessment of the sources you've put forward so that we can establish a consensus for the acceptability of any or all of them in order to reinstate that section. My thinking, at this stage, is that a more substantive section (that better explains what we mean when we say "opioid" and "narcotic" in Wikipedia's voice) might be a more agreeable option.
 * I should also acknowledge that some of those tagged above have been critical of previous changes and my intention is not to stack the deck one way or the other. Please feel encouraged to ping anyone you think could contribute to this discussion in a meaningful way. I, for one, won't consider it a breach of WP:CANVAS under the circumstances.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The opioid characteristics of casomorphins are well documented, but that aspect is not essential to the discussion of A2 and A1 milk. I am perfectly content with deleting that parenthetical explanation of the origin of the word "casomorphin".
 * My reference in the edit summary to Woodford was explicitly a response to your comment when removing the BCM7 paragraph that the claim needed "much better sourcing than the (very fringe) Woodford book which suggests A1 is "linked to autism and schizophrenia". Roxy the dog, in a comment immediately following yours (still discussing the BCM7 statement) linked your reversion to "Woodford's rather wild suggestions". In this case Woodford was used as an (ultimately redundant) source explaining the involvement of BCM7 in milk digestion. Woodford now appears as a source only when referring to matters pertaining to agricultural genetics and the statement that milk from humans, goats and sheep are all free of A1 beta-casein, or relating the commercial history of the product. I daresay they, too, could be sourced to others, but I'd venture that an agricultural scientist at a major New Zealand university would be deemed as fairly reliable.
 * Your approach to BRD is rather curious: you removed the BCM7 statement requesting better sources and I provided three excellent sources, going to the trouble of typing out the relevant quotes. You didn't respond. I added two more high-quality sources, again with quotes. You didn't respond. Roxy's subsequent comment was on his perception of those sources and their relation to Woodford's "speculation and unsupported conclusions." Roxy did not take issue with the accuracy of the BCM7 statement based on the sources I have provided. Seeing no objection to the sources, least of all from you, who had actually removed the content, I reinstated them. Your comment: "That's not how BRD works." If you're going to go down the BRD track, then make the effort to discuss! BlackCab  ( TALK ) 03:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, your listing of sources started yesterday with this edit and continued with this one and this one and finally this where you redrafted/refactored your conclusion. 13 hours later (most of which was night time for you New Zealanders and we Australians) you made your bold edit to the article. Now I suppose I could have spent that hour between 4am and 5am reading biomedical academia relating to milk peptides but I had other stuff to do. Please don't interpret my biological need for sleep as a lack of effort. As a volunteer, I may not have the same commercial impetus driving me to a final version of this article before COB Friday afternoon. But I will happily work with you to find a consensus. As a volunteer, I also had other stuff I wanted to do around here.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After I listed the first three sources you returned to edit the A2 article within the hour and made another dozen or so edits on Wikipedia without bothering to address the point I raised in response to your question. All that's visible and I could see you were active. My point is you are very quick to revert, not so quick to discuss -- particularly on a question you raised. And for the record, I'm in Melbourne. And looking forward to that consensus. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 06:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And you continued to add to your comment after that; you obviously hadn't finished. I'm under no obligation to jump to attention, trawl academic sources about a subject in which I have little interest and rush to help you build a consensus for the sake of producing something for your employers. I have a great many things I'm interested in and not one of them (you'll see from my user page) is milk. I was drawn here via WP:FTN and stayed because of some of the obvious problems in the article. That I was "active" but didn't have the time to commit to this particular subject is irrelevant. There are a great many people who responded to your initial bold edit who haven't been able to return to provide comment since. Most formal discussions to develop consensus remain open for a week, often longer. 24 hours is both unreasonable and unrealistic. But rather than critiquing how much time I seem to have available to spend on this endeavour, maybe spend a few minutes putting together an alternate form of words for that section; a proposal around which you can build a consensus. For the record, that's what most COI editors seek to do, rather than editing an article directly (especially boldly). But that's another matter.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Background" section is exactly what it says it is: it provides a background or context to the difference between A1 and A2 milk. That section is necessary for the science section that will follow once I have appropriate secondary sources. Apart from your specific objection to the wording of one paragraph, apparently based on your objection to the "fringe" idea that milk could contain an opioid element, there has been no discussion by any other editor to indicate a consensus or lack thereof for the wording. As previously stated, Roxy made no judgment on whether the secondary scientific sources supported that paragraph; his sole comment was to try to contrast the "mainstream" Dairy Australia (whose job it is to keep selling milk to domestic and export customers) with the "fringe" agricultural professor -- an individual who is no longer even a source for the section that bothers you. I can only guess at what "alternate form of words" you might want there to avoid starting a scientific fact, but I have already offered as a compromise to delete the reference to the opioid characteristics of the casomorphins. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 07:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * e/c - I was about to type what commercial interest? as I have been AGFing like mad since the Bold edit introducing all this a few days ago, then it occurred to me as I woke to check BC's user page, which I should have done in the first place. I was not surprised, and well done BC for following the rules. On that subject, about which I know little, is that declaration all that is required of you BC? I should assume that the framing of the piece as written is influenced by only the sources - but my initial reactions appear to be accurate, an A2 milk marketers pamphlet. It is a bright, fresh, sunny, beautiful morning here in the UK (as we are all declaring our locations) but a dark cloud approaches. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Enough? Short answer: no. This should probably be referred to WP:COIN for wider input on the matter and I have been giving consideration to doing exactly that. In general, editors representing corporate clients use the Request edit template. This allows independent editors to consider what is being requested and determine whether or not what is being presented is in the community interest and complies with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. While making WP:BOLD edits is generally encouraged, continuously making bold edits as conflicted editor, without substantive discussion, after concerns have been raised, is an issue. Some would suggest that making a bold edit that completely re-writes an article in line with the wishes of the subject corporation is concerning in and of itself. Keeping a client's "ideal" version of an article in draft space without the proper draft or noindex tags is a concern also. Just sayin'.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to raise it at a noticeboard you feel appropriate and I'll discuss that issue there. (If, this time, someone bothers to notify me.) You can point out there where the current article appears to be "an A2 milk marketers pamphlet". In the meantime, I'm still interested in editor's views on whether the paragraph on BCM7 is supported by the statements in the nine scientific journals/textbooks/official reviews, or the existing Wiki article on casomorphins. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 11:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See also "Opioid activities of human β-casomorphins" by Gertrud Koch, Klaus Wiedemann, Hansjörg Teschemacher. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology 1985, Volume 331, Issue 4, pp 351-354 or Journal of Exploratory Animal Medical Research editorial or the Nestle Nutrition Institute. Or Wikipedia's article on Casomorphin. Like I say, A1 beta-casein releases an opioid peptide called BCM7 during digestion. Accepted science.  BlackCab  ( TALK ) 07:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The "Journal of Exploratory Animal Medical Research" source has three red flags without even opening the article. An editorial isn't peer reviewed generally, and as far as I can see the website looks self-published. Indian journals also generally have a pretty poor reputation. Thirdly, the writer is an expert in animal health, and is not a medical researcher. So I'm skeptical of it as a source as it does not meet the standard criteria.
 * Sources self-published by the Nestle Nutrition Institute, would seem to have a conflict of interest. Secondly, there is no sign of what this pdf is from or how reliable it is. Again this does not meet the normal criteria for reliability. Second Quantization (talk)


 * "Some would suggest that making a bold edit that completely re-writes an article in line with the wishes of the subject corporation is concerning in and of itself." Most certainly, I thought current practice was to suggest an edit or version on the talk page when one was a paid advocate? For the medical claims, I'd suggest someone ping wikiproject medicine unless they already have. But firstly, and more importantly, it should be laid out here what text is being discussed, and what source(s) is being put forward for the claims. Second Quantization (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Second Quantization, please return to the text in the box at the top of the section. This was removed because of an editor's concern it needed stronger sourcing. In the bullet points that followed, I provided that. I reinstated those three sentences on BCM7 with the high-quality sources; the material was subsequently removed. I am seeking a view on whether those sources support the apparently widely accepted fact that BCM7 is released from A1 beta-casein during digestion. It's that simple. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 00:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not "simple", in fact it is made significantly more complicated by your obvious conflict of interest which you have refused to address. You continue to edit the article directly rather than proposing changes here for independent editors to consider.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably you refer to WP:NOPAY. As I have not been paid by anyone to promote A2 milk or anything else covered by this article, I am under no such requirement. I have noted on my user page I have accepted a fee for editing work which significantly expanded what was a stub flagged for poor construction, poor grammar and poor sourcing. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 03:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That has to be about the most disingenuous wiki-lawyering I've ever read on this site. You were paid by "someone" (mysterious benefactor of a2 Milk) to "expand" the article. Said person just wanted to give something back to the community and felt expanding this particular article on Wikipedia was the way to do it, right? The resulting edit just happened to promote a2 Milk, increase the prominence of a pro-A2 scientist, discredit A1, distance a2 Milk from rogue A2 promoters and highlight efforts by the milk industry to attack A2 science, thus painting a2 Milk as the victim? Give me a break.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Scientific evidence of A2 benefits over A1
User:Roxy the dog has changed the wording in the lead section from "There is no consensus that A2 milk has benefits over "A1" milk" to "There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk". This statement, although correctly sourced to the European Food Safety Authority, is not an accurate and balanced statement for an encyclopedia.

The EFSA's review of scientific literature on the health effects of A1 milk is just one of several that have been conducted.


 * A 2005 review by University of Sydney Professor of Human Nutrition Stewart Truswell examined published evidence linking milk consumption with type 1 diabetes and coronary heart disease and concluded that "there is no convincing or even probable evidence that the A1 beta-casein of cow milk has any adverse effect in humans".

In the Overall Conclusions of the report, Swinburn wrote: "The hypothesis that a high intake of milk containing A1 β-caseine promotes conditions as heterogeneous as (type 1 diabetes, ischemic heart disease), schizophrenia and autism is intriguing and potentially important. There is some very suggestive evidence from ecological studies for DM-1 and IHD, and there is certainly a possibility that the A1/A2 composition of milk is a factor in the etiology of these conditions. However this hypothesis has yet to be backed by good human trials. The evidence in relation to autism comes mainly from poorly controlled clinical trials of gluten-free, casein-free diets where some improvement is noted in the autism characteristics and behaviours. The evidence in relation to schizophrenia is very minimal.. "In my opinion, the warranted actions at present by the relevant government agencies involve: 1. Funding further research, especially clinical research. 2. Communicating the current evidence and the uncertainty to the public about the A1/A2 hypothesis and its implications for milk consumption. 3. Monitoring new evidence as it is published and reviewing public health action. 4. Monitoring the claims being made to the public about health benefits of A2 milk and ensuring that they are within the food claims regulations."
 * A 2004 study, carried out by Professor Boyd Swinburn, of the School of Health Sciences at Deakin University, was commissioned by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. Its lay summary concluded: "The A1/A2 hypothesis is both intriguing and potentially very important for public health if it is proved correct. It should be taken seriously and further research is needed ... Changing dairy herds to more A2 producing cows may significantly improve public health, if the A1/A2 hypothesis is proved correct, and it is highly unlikely to do harm ... As a matter of individual choice, people may wish to reduce or remove A1 beta-casein from their diet (or their children's diet) as a precautionary measure. This may be particularly relevant for those individuals who have or are at risk of the diseases mentioned (Type 1 diabetes, coronary heart disease, autism and schizophrenia)."

A little higher in the report it says "There are only two papers reporting an opposite opinion of on BCM-7's role in human health. Especially scientists of the Fonterra group (one of the world's largest diary corporations that control 95% of New Zealand's milk supply) criticize the A1/A2 hypothesis. Fonterra's scientists have been critical about the A1/A2 hypothesis and stated that no convincing relationship has been established between A1 or A2 milk and diseases ..." The report also cites Truswell as a critic of the A1/A2 hypothesis. It has been reported in New Zealand Australian media that Truswell had been paid as a consultant by Fonterra and had been a witness for Fonterra in a court case between Fonterra and A2. (Truswell did not disclose this in his review but subsequently admitted this in another publication). (See ).
 * Stanislaw Kaminski, Anna Cieslinska, Elzbieta Kostyra, "Polymorphism of bovine beta-casein and its potential effect on human health" (review article), Journal of Applied Genetics 48(3) 2007, pp 189-198. Its Conclusions and Perspectives section begins: "The hypothesis that a high consumption of A1 beta-casein increases the risk of DM-1, IHD, SIDS, schizophrenia and autism is very intriguing and interesting for basic as well as application studies. However some pieces of evidence in relation to human illnesses are not strong enough and should be verified. Therefore it is necessary to continue research into the role of BCM7 .... for human health. If the hypothesis of undesirable role of A1 beta-casein is confirmed, consumers may wish to reduce or remove this allele from their diet. This may play an important role for people with established familial IHD or a high risk of IHD, children at high risk for DM-1, and other high-risk families."

Given the clear concern by Swinburn and Kaminksi et al over the implications of some evidence, it would be false to state that "There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk". To do so would be to make an editorial judgment that the EFSA review is the one reliable source. The clear fact is there is scientific evidence, but no consensus over its validity or significance. Reviews have subsequently called for more research, particularly clinical trials.

Swinburn himself noted the difficulty of there being "vested commercial interests in the research and its outcomes." This is as much true of Fonterra as it is of A2 Milk Company, and the previous appeals to "mainstream belief" needs to be viewed in that context. Roxy's edit needs to be reverted or rewritten. BlackCab ( TALK ) 13:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you should read what you have written above very carefully. Nothing in there supports you. It can be summed up, as it is in the article in the phrase "There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk." -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe your statement further supports that there is no scientific evidence supporting A2 having an advantage over A1.
 * Also, I find the last statement in the lede rather complex and propose that it should be summarized with "There is no scientific evidence supporting A2 milk having any health benefits over regular milk". Jim1138 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to make this clear, the focus of the research is not without context; it's an examination of supposed adverse effects on human health of A1 in the light that an alternative is available. Many of those studies refer directly to A2 milk being commercially produced. Kaminski et al note (p.193): "Epidemiological evidence from New Zealand suggests that A2 milk is better for human health than A1 milk." Their conclusion that a solution for some persons might be to remove "this allele from their diet" can be achieved by switching from A1 to A2 milk. When Swinburn wrote in his executive summary "Changing dairy herds to more A2 producing cows may significantly improve public health," it was a direct comparison of the benefits of one versus the other. The EFSA report (p.57) makes clear that BCM7 is released from A1 milk but not A2. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the Kaminski paper (unverified accuracy). Jim1138 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's the paper I'm referring to. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 02:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Kaminski paper seems more to suggest possible issues with A1 milk than to document actual issues. I don't see how this would be MEDRS supporting removal of the "no evidence" statement. Jim1138 (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * BlackCab I've suggested, including at ANI, that you shouldn't be editing the article directly in line with WP:NOPAY. At a minimum, you shouldn't be edit-warring to add a tag that nobody else supports. With regard to the issue itself, for there to be no grounds for such a claim, there would need to be evidence to the contrary - that is, scientific evidence to support the benefit of A1 over A2. By seeking to remove that claim (of no scientific evidence) you are suggesting that there is, indeed, scientific evidence. Such evidence does not exist. There are suggestions, claims and assertions, even compelling ones, but those are not the same as evidence. The two alternative statements here are not mutually exclusive. There is no scientific evidence and there is likewise no consensus. If there was evidence, there would likely be some form of consensus. It is accurate to say there is no evidence, just as it is accurate to say there is no consensus. Given we are talking about science, the acknowledgement that there is no scientific evidence seems appropriate. We're not suggesting that the evidence cannot possibly exist, we're suggesting that it doesn't and that could simply mean it doesn't yet. Most of your sources seem to suggest the need for evidence. Our article should reflect that.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Findings about the adverse effects of A1 beta-casein proteins have been disputed by some scientists."
This sentence at the start of the A2_milk section, is likely very perplexing to readers, as there are no claims in the article that there are any adverse effects. Not that I think that there are any compelling claims, but the article's "controversy" doesn't make any sense. Are people making false claims for A2? Are they making any claims? It will be delicate addressing this, but the article doesn't make sense without it. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The sentence, like much of that entire two-paragraph introductory section, relates to material that has since been deleted from the "criticism and controversy" section. Without the context or elaboration, I agree it no longer makes sense. The dispute/debate over scientific findings about A1 beta-casein proteins is something I'd like to see back in the article, because it is at the heart of the strong stand by the mainstream dairy industry, but it would need to be in a quite different form to my original wording. I'd be happy at some point to offer a suggested wording for that material at the talk page. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 11:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

COI Templates added
I have added COI templates to the article, and this page. The requirements of the template usage requires that reasons for the tags ought to be specified and discussed on this page, hence this section. I do believe that discussion is already taking place in this matter, so this is merely crossing i's and dotting t's. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think leaving the tag on the article page is really no longer necessary. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

China exports
The section on A2 infant formula exports to China contains some outdated material: one of the two companies involved has now gained registration to allow imports to resume. If there's no objection I'll add a COI template here containing a suggested rewording (and slight trim) including a citation for the news report on this. BlackCab ( TALK ) 23:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I await with an open mind. Go for it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit would update existing material relating to the halting in May 2014 of exports of the infant formula to China, which is described as a "lucrative" infant formula market to which few Australian and New Zealand manufacturers have access. (See . Thanks. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 04:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the proposed edit, and will happily insert it if there is no further comment in, say, 24 hours. Is that OK? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No probs. Thanks. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 11:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to renege on my word above, but I wont be available to edit per my comment above after twenty four hours, so I've done it already. If there are issues, I'm sure they can be sorted. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . Great work folks.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Peptides (again)
The earlier discussion on this subject veered off topic and was never resolved. I wish to resume that discussion in a separate, uncluttered thread. On 16 July User:Stalwart111 removed a paragraph relating to the BCM7 peptide. If there's no objection, I'll insert a COI template here containing a suggested modification of that paragraph (and slight trim). The reason: I am nearing completion on a reworked "history" section of A2 milk (including the scentific reviews) which I'll bring to the talk page soon and and there will be several references to BCM7 there. BlackCab ( TALK ) 03:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, let's give it a go. If we can manage the "in Wikipedia's voice" concerns I had then we should be able to find a way to move forward. Perhaps we could find an appropriate quote and include that with proper attribution.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As part of the citation? Shouldn't be a problem. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 11:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean as part of the text itself. Let's find a reliable source (MEDRS if need be) and quote the source rather than a paragraph in WP's voice. For example, "In Milk: The New Frontier, clinical researcher Professor Xavier suggests...". You can use a few different ones for balance. Rather than drawing our own conclusions (my original concern) we simply recount their conclusions and let the reader decide. If there's no conclusive evidence yet (the opinion of editors in earlier threads, myself included) then let's provide what is available in the voice of those who have provided it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What follows is a version of the paragraph (intended as the second paragraph of the "Background" section) that does include such a quote. There were several quotes to choose from, with varying degrees of technical terminology that, in the end could be counterproductive by obscuring for general readers a fairly simple statement. In the end I went with Truswell (whose review came down very heavily against the hypothesis that A1 beta-casein is harmful); other options included Swinburn and Kaminski et al whose explanations were rather more detailed, and thus less clear to general readers.

To clarify: the first reference (no.1) calls in the earlier "Truswell" reference already contained higher in the article. In the initial discussion on this paragraph the reference to opioid properties of BCM7 was a sticking point. I have deleted reference to this, though each of these reviews refers very clearly to those properties; in any case that characteristic is explained contained in the Wikipedia article on casomorphins. BlackCab ( TALK ) 04:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to this - is it controversial? Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That fact is contained as standard introductory background information in all the papers on research into the potential health effects of A1 beta-casein, so as far as I can see, no. The BCM7 and its possible effects is central to that research. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 08:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. Roxy, the original version, I felt, drew conclusions in Wikipedia's voice. This attributes those conclusions to (respected) academics and removes (entirely) the conclusion with which I was least comfortable. I would still be willing to consider ways in which that could be included but there is certainly nothing objectionable in the above proposal (from my point of view). I would be happy to make that edit if there are no objections.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters in this case who actually makes the edit - so I put it in. BC, I am very happy to follow your lead as to how to progress this, but why don't you bite the bullet and open discussion in what you consider the most sensitive area of the topic. I am certain it can be calmly and rationally discussed, without rancour or sarcasm on my part. I have a couple of regrets, firstly for the sneering sarcasm - and I apologise for that - and secondly that I wasn't there to see your face when the light dawned. Sorry ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice work, except I think the idea was that the new section would be a new paragraph 2, not that it would replace the existing paragraph 2. Unless I got that completely wrong? But I've added it back in now as paragraph 3 - we can always remove it if that was the intention.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ooops. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 05 August 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved'. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A2 milk → A1 and A2 milk Protein – this should clear up the confusion on the brand and the proteins. Dreylax01 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. The article is about a dairy product known as A2 milk, which is the logical name of the article. It includes background information on the distinction between A1 and A2 proteins. The suggested article names do not accurately summarise the content, but could conceivably be the name of an eventual breakout article if there was sufficient content on that subject. Which there may not be. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 06:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose (this should have been removed but was instead moved... oh well). The product and the company that makes it are both called "A2 Milk" and this article is about both the product and the company that sells it. It is about A1 milk only insofar as A2 milk isn't A1 milk (and to the extent that needs to be clarified) and there are other articles that deal with the different proteins that are the difference between the two. I can't see justification for a separate article focused on A1 milk in particular - A1 is effectively all milk that isn't A2 and if you need more information... milk.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I cannot see the point of contributing further to the rather fine marketing campaign orchestrated by A2 milk sellers. I'm sure there must be an article called milk here somewhere, and that is all we need. I'm now desperate to see if that redlinks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I don't think its unreasonable to rename this article to A1 & A2 proteins in milk or the A1&A2 milk protein. Dreylax01 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.