Talk:A2 milk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A2 history/science

In response to Roxy's comment above, the chunkiest bit of what I consider remains to be included in the article is the story behind the creation of A2. In short, it came about because of a perception by some scientists that there was a health issue with normal milk because of the presence of A1 beta-caseine. I have fully acquainted myself with WP:RSMED and have therefore discarded much of the science findings that were contained in my original rewrite of July 13. What remains is the discoveries/hypotheses/concerns of Elliott and McLachlan, who were the key figures in the decision to create an A1-free milk, plus the claims made by those who applied for patents for the technology to create A2 milk. (In other words I have included only the science that resulted in the invention of A2 milk; what came afterwards I have ignored). I have tried to keep that stuff to a minimum, but I think there needs to be adequate coverage of what it was that drove them to create the product (viz, a conviction that they had discovered something awfully wrong with normal milk). As much as possible I have left it to Truswell and other secondary sources to describe what those scientists reported.

There also needs to be coverage of the independent evaluation of that science. Two major reviews were commissioned by New Zealand food safety authority, and two other smaller ones merit coverage. Like much of science there are divisions and egoes and vested interests and because of the heat generated by transtasman media coverage of A2 milk (which presumably will also be inevitable in the UK and wherever the product might gain traction) I think it's important to keep a sense of that in there too, including those complicating factors. (Not the least of which is a curious parallel of Truswell being paid to write an "independent" review for a deeply involved party ... and me being paid to ... well, you know what I mean.)

It's therefore a fairly long section and at this stage I'd suggest it's going to be too unwieldy to post it all on the talk page; therefore it may be more convenient to read my proposed edit at User:BlackCab/A2history and then, I guess, comment back here.

This section was always going to be the trickiest to present. I have tried to apply balance, but I am certainly open to discussion about any shortcomings you see in it or ways it can be improved. I'll leave it with you. BlackCab (TALK) 12:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm working my way through it so may have some more comments but I thought I would post the first couple so you could have a think about them over the weekend:

• I think the sentence, "Some reviews described the evidence of adverse effects on humans of A1 beta-caseine as intriguing and suggestive" should be changed to, "Some reviews described the conclusions of that research evidence of adverse effects on humans of A1 beta-caseine as intriguing and suggestive". You're planning on explaining the conclusions later so to call them evidence and summarise them is probably a bit premature. I think that little section at the front with no citations is okay - but we should stick to noting that there are conclusions rather than trying to summarise them in 1-2 lines.
• It's too long. It's almost an article in its own right as we already have an article about casomorphins where some of this could go. We could start with a {{main}} tag but its still a huge amount of information. I'm struggling with which bits might be reduced because a lot of it is very good. At the end of the day, this is about the milk - the science and history behind it are important but we have other articles where some of this information might be more appropriate. Leave it with me.
• One bit we can probably do without, though, and that's the section relating to "unpublished research". There are obviously going to be questions about why research like that is unpublished and whether it is peer reviewed (probably not). Patent applications are usually considered primary sources, certainly not sufficient for claims where we would normally require MEDRS sourcing. A patent application is, by definition, the commercial defining of a "problem to be solved", non-scientific, and opinionated. That's fine but it's not MEDRS and we can't suggest medical/scientific conclusions based on unpublished research recounted in a patent application.

Happy to discuss each of those and I will have another look over the weekend to see if there is anything else I wanted to raise with you. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Point 1: You're right. Fixed. BlackCab (TALK) 01:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Point 2: In terms of length, here's a first step. I'd been wavering over the inclusion or exclusion of the issue over the NZFSA's handling of the release of Swinburn's report. I'm now tending to think this may not be worth including. The Swinburn report could therefore be boiled down to one paragraph.

Point 3: I've struck out details of the research behind the patent applications. BlackCab (TALK) 01:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, good start. The new lead para is much stronger I think (in terms of quality). I just wonder how much of this should instead be included in our casomorphins article. In reality, people can claim whatever they like in a patent application (and often do to substantiate the "problem" they believe they are "solving"). I'd be really uncomfortable with anything that summarises claims from a patent application and presents them as science. In a patent application, I could claim cheese causes cancer and that I had invented a cure. That doesn't make either of those things true or reliable enough for inclusion here. I'm a bit confused, for example, about the line, "applied for two patents concerning what it claimed were the adverse health consequences of A1 milk". Patents "concern" inventions so what were they patenting? The tests? The process for identifying particular things? Why they sought the patent isn't really relevant - the science doesn't have to be reliable. A primary source like a patent document could only really be used to verify what they sought to patent, not why. That section goes back and forth between primary-sourced claims in various patent applications and somewhat-related medical/scientific claims. The sources for the latter are obviously better but it comes across a synthesis, even though that's obviously not the intent. Again, I think part of the solution is to split the commercial patent activity from the science (as much as those applicants might claim the patents are based on science) with the history of A2 in this article and the science around casomorphins in their own article. What would that look like? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Casomorphins: The casomorphin article does contain some material that is common to the A2 milk article, but I don't think there's so much in the A2 article that it should be removed and replaced with just a {{Main article}} link. Can you specify what part/s of the article you think should be cut out for that reason? That article needs some improvement as well, which could raise issues of whether I'm perceived to have a COI over there. That's a matter for later however.

Patents: The information in the original patent documents shows that the "inventions" claimed were methods of producing milk free of A1 beta-caseins, chiefly through genetic testing of the herds. They then explain that the purpose of the patent is to produce milk that does not contribute to heart disease, diabetes etc. The second paragraph of the "initial concerns" subsection states that fact, but the final sentence of that paragraph, ("In a 2001 peer-reviewed paper ..." could be deleted. It explains how McLachlan arrived at that belief, but it's not essential. I think the two remaining references to patents in the paragraph that begins "In February 2000 ..." should stay to show the early concerns of the "mainstream" dairy sector, though I'd now be inclined to remove the phrase that the NZDRI "applied for two patents concerning what it claimed were the adverse health consequences of A1 milk. It might be better worded as the NZDRI "applied for two patents designed to produce milk free of A1 beta-caseine." I included links to the patent documents (primary sources) as a verification only. I appreciate your concern about patent claims being presented as science; the important thing in explaining the origin of A2 milk is to make clear that it was those conclusions, if you like, (or what they saw in the results) of scientific tests that prompted them to make such a product available. Deleting reference to their conclusions obscures the reasons why they pushed ahead.

For the sake of clarity, let me know so far if you agree with what I've struck out (including what I've just suggested) and I'll remove it, just to make it easier to read and discuss. BlackCab (TALK) 06:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best if I sat to one side at the moment. I wouldn't have been able to cogently suggest the improvements you have both agreed so far. If I can usefully comment I will of course. I'll keep up. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If I can comment as someone with experience with WP:MEDRS; I think if the goal is to look for the current scientific position on the effects of A1/A2 casein, you need to strictly follow MEDRS. In this case, we need to find good sources that meet all requirements of MEDRS, including WP:MEDDATE. As such, the NZFSA, Truswell and Kaminski sources are all out of date, and only the EFSA and this source meet the other requirements per MEDRS that I can find (though I may be missing some). I would suggest using only those two sources (or any other sources that meet current criteria) for a description of the current scientific consensus on the topic. Clearly the NZFSA material should be mentioned as the controversy surrounding it bears mention, though probably in the Controversy section and not in a section desribing the current state of the science. The EFSA source is especially important as their role is to specifically synthesize large amounts of primary data and to look at safety and nutritional issues. I would expand the details in the EFSA main conclusion (i.e. its conclusions regarding the state of science on effect of autism, diabetes, etc. Yobol (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I can expand the EFSA paragraph. User:Second Quantization earlier [1] described the Nestle research as self-published with a COI that fails to meet WP:RS. I have investigated it no further since then but I will try to download a full version of that article. There has certainly been extensive media coverage of the handling of the NZFSA release (prompting a later review commissioned by the NZFSA) and the apparent COI in the widely-quoted Truswell article and if there is consensus on this I can deal with both those as a paragraph each under the Criticism and controversy section. BlackCab (TALK) 23:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what they were responding to; the cited source I am proposing is not self published, but published by Karger, is MEDLINE indexed and I see no other red flags to suggest it is unreliable. While I have no doubt a controversy section is important, it will be also important to place the relative weight of sections so that individual controversies (and a "controversy section as a whole" do not overwhelm the content of the article. Yobol (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What I was responding to was possibly the same article, but it was on the Nestle site, with no indicators of being a part of a particular published volume. I commented indicating I didn't know it's source or where its from, but if it was distributed by Nestle on their website it's self published. I haven't looked at this new source to see if it's the same, Second Quantization (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies. I had just checked -- you just beat me to the punch. The link you were responding to had no context and your caution was justified. The linked article does, however appear to be the one to which Yobol referred. BlackCab (TALK) 00:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Nestle paper by Roger Clemens is very brief -- one and a half pages -- and contains just four citations. Is this deemed more notable than, say Kaminski (2007), a much more comprehensive review? (Though the link provided by Yobol cites pages 187-95. Back to square one: I'll try to locate that publication.) BlackCab (TALK) 00:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Roger Clemens article appears in "Milk and Milk Products in Human Nutrition", a publication of about 215 pages, which is a collection of presentations at the 67th workshop of the Nestle Nutrition Institute, held in Marrakech in 2010. Clemens' paper runs for nine pages but appears to be the paper summarised at [2]. The collection of presentations is indeed published by Karger, but I'm not convinced that a paper presented at a Nestle workshop would meet the requirements of WP:RSMED. Yobol, I'll throw this back to you if I can, since you suggested it as a source: would it seriously cut the mustard for the purposes of providing a reliable secondary source that assesses the current state of scientific knowledge on the potential impacts on human health of A1 beta-casein? BlackCab (TALK) 03:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that typically presentations at a conference do not normally meet the criteria for WP:MEDRS, principally because the information is not usually peer reviewed. However, this source appears to be edited, and published through a known scientific publisher. I think it probably passes MEDRS, but further discussion at WT:MED or WP:RSN to get other attention on the subject may be useful as well. Yobol (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have the report now and will take a closer look before I raise it for discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 07:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have raised a couple of questions at WTMED about the Nestle and other reviews. BlackCab (TALK) 03:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at WT:MED regarding the Nestle workshop paper produced just one suggestion before it went stale, namely to be concise and cautious. I have therefore added a single paragraph containing the (uncontroversial) conclusion of Clemens' review. Yobol's initial comment regarding the currency of scientific reviews in the article was based on his assumption that "the goal is to look for the current scientific position on the effects of A1/A2 casein"; my feeling is that both the two first reviews listed (NZFSA, EFSA) as well as Truswell were newsworthy events in themselves because of the media interest in A2 milk and therefore all are valid parts of the history narrative; each was highly anticipated and gained significant media coverage in New Zealand and Australia and each in turn gained a reaction. The later reviews (Kaminski, Clemens) cover the more recent research. Stalwart had earlier expressed a concern about the length of this whole section, but once inserted in the A2 milk article, which already covers a fair amount of ground, it would be balanced in terms of its weight. Is it possible to advance discussion on this now to the point where I can add the {{editrequest}} template? BlackCab (TALK) 11:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you should add your edit request, I'd like to see you make progress here. My comment above still applies, if I can add value to the discussion I will. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I continue to object to the use of Truswell and Kaminski sources as sources for current medical consensus on the topic as both are out-of-date per WP:MEDDATE and therefore are not WP:MEDRS compliant. The best source we have is the EFSA source, which can be supplemented by Clemens (which largely agrees with the EFSA). Use of NZFSA, Truswell and Kaminski may be appropriate for a history section, but should not be used in a summary of the current medical thought. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly shorten that section. I've stated my preference above, but I'll follow whatever consensus arises here. BlackCab (TALK) 13:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As an additional perspective, RSMED, and specifically WP:MEDDATE, does allow older information to be presented as part of a history section. The proposed edit, still at User:BlackCab/A2history, is essentially just that: an overview of the history of A2 milk, including the succession of official and individual science reviews. Does that fact overcome the objection raised by Yobol? BlackCab (TALK) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

health effects

this article was strange to read, since there was nothing about why anybody should care about A2 milk. I dug back into the history and found the (ridiculous) former text on this, and dramatically condensed it and found better sources for it. I was very careful to frame the claims about A2 milk as marketing done by A2 Milk and to not to state their health claims in WP's voice. I also provided the appropriate statements that there is nothing to these claims. Happy to discuss and of course to see the content modified and improved, but something about "who cares" needs to be in here. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The thread above this one ("A2 history/science") is a discussion over a proposed edit that covered exactly this issue, though in more detail. That thread contains a link to my sandbox where that proposed edit was being created. I think you have done a creditable job. Still missing from the article is the product's market share in Australia, once contained in the article and sourced to this article.

I have some concerns about the statement "An independent review published in 2005 had found the same thing." This refers to the Truswell review, which was subsequently accused of being anything but "independent". The language of the later Kaminski scientific review (2007) was less dismissive and rather mirrored the tone of the Swinburn review (2004). BlackCab (TALK) 23:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

glad you are mostly OK with it. i don't think more detail is warranted, on health issues. I think market share information is promotional and newspaper-ish and would probably revert it if you added it. I didn't catch the disclosure about Truswell above. I don't think failure to disclose means that the work actually was tainted, and I very much do not believe the "zombie hypothesis" that a scientist who has worked for industry becomes their mindless slave (especially not once he or she is off their payroll) but I see how the "independent" adjective is awkward at best. I will take that off. Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, ec'd on the other comment but I think it still makes sense. I'm probably 50/50 on the market share thing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm always less excited about bold editing when it comes in the midst of ongoing discussion and without reference to that ongoing discussion. But the effort is commendable. It was generally agreed that such a section was required for the purposes of giving a full and balanced account. Much of what BC had drafted would have worked well and we've kind of reinvented the wheel by redrafting some of that from scratch. In terms of function I think it's generally in the direction we were heading but I think the tone needs work. Links to "cherry picking" and the like could probably be toned down. With all of the discussion (and references to other places) I'm actually not sure where we got with Truswell. Did anyone from any of the other projects have anything to say about that? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you for tolerating me. :) I work in a lot of controversial areas, especially related to food. From my perspective, the endless wrangling is really unproductive. Discussion is very important but there comes a point when we have to call a claim "not supported by the science" and move on. On these issues, it is nigh onto impossible to prove that most tweaks on a food product (organic, GMO, no A1 protein) make a difference, health-wise. The reasons for that are explained the most clearly in Wikipedia (that I have found) in the organic food article, Organic_food#Health_and_safety. Almost all of the reasons I am about to state are discussed in the EFSA review we cite as well. Basically, a) "food" is a very variable and complex thing (utterly unlike a drug, which is very specifically one consistent thing - one chemical, made with careful quality control), so the "intervention" you would be testing in a "food trial" is so fuzzy that you would need a huge N (number of subjects) to get a result that had a chance of having statistical significance; b) you would need a very long term study to see any kind of chronic health effect; c) you would probably have to lock the subjects away to ensure they are not exposed to the test substance in some other way and to make sure that they don't eat or drink other things that would confound the trial. The expense and complication of that are beyond fathomable. So there will probably never be clinical evidence that organic food or A2 milk are "more healthy". On the flipside - the toxicology side - (which is a scientific discipline that takes some time to wrap your head around) in the ~14 years since A1/A2 has been worked on, there has still not been a "killer" animal study done, where A1 is delivered appropriately (orally), to an appropriate animal model, with a big enough N, over a long enough time, with a clear hypothesis and appropriately testable outcome, with good negative and positive controls, to provide reasonable proof that A1 is toxic. This is very doable, and it has not been done. (on the GMO side, Seralini claimed he did that, and tried to convince everyone he did, but failed.) The epidemiological studies for A1/A2 looked at overall do not support a claim of toxicity (claims that they do are cherrypicking - the EFSA report explicitly says that (without using the word) when they write things like "Moreover, the difference in content of β-casein A1+B in milk produced in countries with high or low prevalence of IDDM appears relatively small and does not explain, from an immunological point of view, the difference in incidence of IDDM across countries." And there is a reasonable amount of evidence from standard tox models and population exposure that there is no reason to expect that marketed GMOs or A1 milk would be toxic. It does no good to debate endlessly. There is tons of passion (and money) on many sides of these issues, but the science is clear in all of them. Wikipedia stands with the science, not with the marketers and POV-pushers. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

that was already too much of a wall of text. but one more thing. when we are discussing health claims, this falls solidly within MEDRS and MEDMOS. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Citing_sources for how to discuss sources. We don't discuss the source, we paraphrase the health-related facts presented in the source. That is why I wrote the health section the way I did.Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently promotional or "newspaper-ish" in stating the market share of a product. The Wikipedia entry notes that "Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website and constitutes the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work" and the organic food article notes the US market share of that food type. In the case of A2 milk it is notable that this distinctive product, sold solely on the basis that it may be better for health and for a higher price than normal milk, has attracted such a market share. BlackCab (TALK) 01:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The examples are reasonable arguments for including market share. The sentence starting with "In the case of A2 milk..." is meaningless and could be generalized to any product and its marketing claims. But yes, many product-oriented articles do have market share discussions. I'm persuaded and would not revert addition of a NPOV market share discussion in the article, in the commercial development section. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The market share could be covered in "Commercial production > Australia, New Zealand" with a sentence following the sentence about A2 thickened cream being released in January 2014. I'd suggest a sentence that reads: "By early 2014 A2 Milk Company products accounted for 8 per cent of all milk sales.(ref>Adams, Christopher (7 June 2014). "Lion relaunch a bid to slow A2 growth". The New Zealand Herald. Auckland. Retrieved 20 June 2014.</ref) BlackCab (TALK) 02:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for market share for all products touting A2? Interesting that there is now at least one other company pushing A2. Are there others? (btw, I messed with your ref brackets as refs on talk pages are annoying - hope you don't mind) Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Apart from A2 Milk Company products and the yoghurt, thickened cream and infant formula products already named in the article (which are produced or licensed by A2 Milk Co) Lion's Pura is the only rival dairy product mentioning A2 on the label. Lion's move to label its milk "Naturally contains A2 milk" has been criticised by the Australian consumer group Choice as "a cynical marketing ploy" that is "aimed at confusing customers." See [3] and [4]. As far as I'm aware there are no figures available encompassing all dairy products in Australia containing A1-free milk (ie, linked with the A2 Milk Company) and my guess is that those products (other than A2 Milk) are fairly small beer. The figures I have seen are that A2 milk has 5 percent of the fresh milk market or more than 8 percent in dollar terms (The Australian, 5 April 2014), that 5 percent of fresh milk consumed in Australia is A2 and that A2 has 9 percent of the supermarket milk market (The Age, 24 May 2014) and that it has 8 percent by value of Australia's grocery milk market (NZ Herald, 7 June 2014). I can provide full citations if you need them. BlackCab (TALK) 03:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the 8% seems plenty good enough. I am interested in the evolution of a2's marketing. If I may ask, do you have a source that tracks how they have pitched A2 over the years? Apparently they are now emphasizing avoiding stomach discomfort and before, it seemed that they were focused more on not making people sick with diabetes etc .... and we don't have anything on the "stomach discomfort" claims here. While I am asking.. :) I hunted a bit today for sources on what happened in the US and came up dry on the internets. Plenty on the initial hype but not so much on the fizzle and withdrawal.. (that rarely gets press since it is not shiny and new but the story is often so interesting and educational to boot) anything on that? Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to go through the clippings on that. From memory none of the claims about diabetes etc have been made by the A2 company; they sprang from the early research by Elliott, Hill, McLachlan etc and were pursued by scientists; they may have been mentioned in the 2004 Queensland marketing that led to the $15k fine; that company died very soon afterwards and the A2 Corporation then took over all marketing and production itself. Their marketing (and media comments) are directed almost entirely at perceived digestive benefits. BlackCab (TALK) 04:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ok, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Re the US market entry: Woodford covered this in a paragraph or two in his Devil in the Milk book and I found more info in the A2 Corporation annual reports online. Generally not much has been written about this. BlackCab (TALK) 05:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "A company, A2 Corporation, was founded in New Zealand in the early 2000s to commercialize a genetic test to determine whether a cow will produce milk with the A1 protein" could be improved to better explain the purpose of the genetic test. I'd suggest: "...to commercialize a genetic test to identify those cows within a herd that produce milk without the A1 protein." Although the culling/breeding process is explained in the "commercial production" section, the existing wording suggests they are seeking cows that produce the A1 protein. All obviously need to be identified, but it's really the A2 cows they're after. BlackCab (TALK) 07:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of corrections

The article has gone through significant changes in the past day with a combination of trimming, rewriting and, in some areas, expansion. I might just take this opportunity to point out a couple of errors that have been introduced in the process. Both are in the "Commercial production" section.

• The article currently states "A2 milk was first marketed in New Zealand in 2001 and then in Australia." Although a New Zealand company was licensed in 2001 to produce and market A2 milk, it did not actually get any to market. The first A2 milk to be sold was actually in Australia (Fairbrae Jersey Gold, early 2003); its NZ launch (April 2003) came afterwards, and both Woodford's book and the cited NZ Herald article states this explicitly.

• There is an erroneous statement that commercial development was "slowed by concern in the dairy industry and by regulators over A2 Corporations's health claims". The same NZ Herald article is cited as a source. "Commercial development" presumably means the process of getting it on to the market. The final three paragraphs of the Herald article states that Fonterra in fact managed to delay the launch through its exercise of market power. Fonterra certainly was (and still is) concerned that consumers may reduce milk consumption in general because of health concerns raised over the A1 protein. But in my research I recall nothing that suggests those concerns directly delayed the A2 Corporation getting its product to market. A2's first licensees in fact seemed to struggle with the demands of finding exclusive milk suppliers and establishing efficient distribution networks. I'm also not aware of any media coverage stating that there was initial friction between the company and food regulators over health claims, or that such friction delayed the product launch. A Queensland licensee was fined in 2004 over its advertising claims, but that was a year after the product had been on the market. The opening sentence of the "Australia, New Zealand" section could instead refer to the product being launched despite strong opposition from major players in the transtasman dairy industry (specifically Fonterra and Dairy Australia). BlackCab (TALK) 08:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

did first one. Don't agree on the second one. I agree that as for the rest of the first paragraph, this needs improvement - I have probably compressed too much here. Help me clarify something... what caused the 2 year delay in NZ? Jytdog (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm ... not sure the rewording works. "...to commercialize a genetic test to determine whether a cow will produce milk without the A1 protein." It reads now like a fitness test, like asking if a Marine can do 200 pushups. The test is to identify those cows in a herd that produce milk without the A1 protein. Those cows are then separated.

Woodford's book (which is at home; I'm at work, so this if from memory) simply says that New Zealand Dairy Foods, the company awarded the exclusive licence to get the product on the market, failed to do so within the agreed time, so they lost their exclusive licence. I don't recall him giving any more detail. I'd imagine it would have been a pretty big task, particularly to persuade dairy farmers to turn their backs on Fonterra to help get a brand new product on the market. The next companies awarded the licence probably had to start from the beginning. Can you explain why you disagree on the second point? I see no facts to support the statement. BlackCab (TALK) 12:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The genetic test description is accurate (that is what the test tells you - what a dairy farmer does with the results is up to him or her - and good enough for me. I am not going to quibble over exact wording. On New Zealand, I recall reading an article yesterday that marketing was delayed by regulators/government - there was some scandal around the report produced by the regulatory agency that caused the delay. I will have to go back and find that. Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The test may do that, but the purpose of the test can be better described. I'll search for the NZ detail too. BlackCab (TALK) 12:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

gotta go, just stashing some sources about NZ launch: here, here, here which is a subpage of this... not sure i will use any of those, just stashing them. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

how crazy that Howard Paterson died just a couple of months after giving the Four Corners interview, which was apparently his first big media interview. i wonder what kind of impact his death had on A2 Corp...Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact Paterson and McLachlan died within weeks of each other. McLachlan died of cancer in August. Did you have any luck in finding sources for the sentence about commercial development being slowed by regulators over A2 Corporations's health claims? I have still found nothing that supports that statement. BlackCab (TALK) 07:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nor I. It seems like a logical conclusion to draw but we can't go doing things like that. Not sure what the solution is. Do we have anything that would support any sort of statement about the regulator? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog introduced that statement in this edit. He has not explained the basis of that statement. According to an official review by Stuart Slorach of the NZ Food Safety Authority's handling of the A2 issue [5] the authority's first move on A2 milk was in "early 2003" (see page 37) when it decided to commission an independent review of literature. The product was on the market in both Australia and NZ by April 2003. According to the Slorach review, Swinburn sent a draft report to the NZFSA in October 2003; peer reviewers were selected in February 2004 and the report released in August 2004. Very clearly there had been no official intervention at all before the product was launched. Even then there were no interventions by any regulator until a Queensland distributor was fined in September 2004 for breaching regulations on food advertising.

The statement in this article does seem to be an assumption and in the absence of corroborative material is simply wrong. I have suggested above an alternative wording for that sentence. BlackCab (TALK) 01:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Woodford's book (p.194) states that the Queensland licensee, A2 Dairy Marketers, was fined $15k but almost immediately collapsed with debts of more than $1 million. A2 Corporation took over marketing and distribution and in Woodford's words "within a few weeks had A2 milk back in the supermarkets." It would be quite a stretch to describe those "few weeks" off the shelf due to a company's financial collapse as a slowing of commercial development "by regulators over A2 Corporations's health claims". BlackCab (TALK) 01:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest I wasn't clear whether that was a reference to NZ development, Australian development or both. I just mean that if there is a delay and the claims made are more complex, it might seem logical to conclude that the delay was due to the complexity. But as you say, a few weeks (even a few months) probably wouldn't be a considered a significant delay anyway. And even if it were, we would still need a source describing it as such. The disparity between the fine and the debt would be about right - they would have acquired significant debt in the hope of commercial success only to be left holding all of that debt without the hope of commercial success when they received the fine. It doesn't point to some other commercial instability so the capacity to almost immediately go to market in a different form would be right. Right or wrong, that conclusion should be removed until we have a source. Suggestions for an alternate form of words? I also had a typo in my comment which said "can" rather than "can't" - an important distinction. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest replacing the sentence in that section beginning "Commercial development was also slowed ..." with: "The product's launch attracted strong opposition from major dairy companies and the mainstream dairy industry." This would lead logically to the next sentence, "Dairy Australia, the national ..." which explains their objections. The statement that "Australian law forbids companies from making health claims about food" properly belongs immediately after the sentence about A2 Dairy Marketers, thus explaining the reason for the fine. BlackCab (TALK) 03:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the story of the early years from better sources. weaved in the regulatory thing I had in mind. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit disjointed. We've swapped the comment raised above with the statement, "the launch of A2 milk was delayed for three years by opposition from Fonterra" which also doesn't have a source. The article now says, "The litigation threatened the economy of the entire county," whereas the source says, "The lawsuit risks inflicting catastrophic damage to New Zealand's international reputation and foreign earnings" neither of which is the "economy" as a whole. It might have damaged a portion of a portion of the country's export effort but that is hardly "the economy of the entire county" and to paraphrase it as such is a problem. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

i think you underestimate what losing 20% of your export market would do to a country. NZ is the saudia arabia of milk. that cuts both ways. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not underestimating it - I'm just saying that what is in the article doesn't reflect what is in the source. I'm not even saying that such a source doesn't exist; I'm just saying that one isn't it. The source says the court case had the potential to impact on a portion of the export trade which is, in turn, a portion of the economy. That's made it into the article as a threat to "the economy of the entire county". That claim is not supported by the source. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious misspelling of "country", Stalwart's objection is correct. The current wording overplays the possible fallout. It is also untrue that "the launch of A2 milk was delayed for three years by opposition from Fonterra". According to Woodford's book, A2 Corporation granted an exclusive licence to New Zealand Dairy Foods in 2001 to put A2 milk on New Zealand supermarket shelves by February 2002. The product was eventually launched in NZ in April 2003. The delay was therefore 14 months beyond the targeted launch date. Update: The extent of that delay is confirmed by a report in the Christchurch Press ("Battle of the proteins gets heated" by Alan Williams, 18 Nov 2002, p6) which quoted A2 Corporation chairman Jim Guthrie as saying A2 had hoped to have A2 milk on shelves "early this year" (ie, early 2002 as per Woodford's statement.) BlackCab (TALK) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

yep, the article says that A2 milk was launched in NZ in 2003, we all agree on that and the sources support that (and also say that first sale anywhere int he world was in australia also in 2003). So I don't know what you are objecting to, date wise. i added a quote in the citation to support the country-wide effect. ""The lawsuit risks inflicting catastrophic damage to New Zealand's international reputation and foreign earnings as Fonterra turns over $14 billion and makes 20% of the country's total offshore receipts. As if that would not be enough of a PR disaster as the country tries to maintain its position as a clean, green food producer...."" Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You've written that the launch was delayed for three years by opposition from Fonterra. The product was launched three years after the A2 Corporation was formed, but the corporation seemed to have been aiming for a Feb 2002 launch. Fonterra did delay the launch, but not by three years. I have seen no source that stipulates just how long the Fonterra action delayed the launch. You seem to be assuming again. BlackCab (TALK) 14:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

now i see your point, it is the "three years". fine, took that out. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Two corrections, one proposed addition

• In the "Austraia, New Zealand" section, a statement is made that "The litigation threatened New Zealand's economy ... which in turn led the New Zealand Food Safety Authority ... to issue reports and statements on the safety of conventional milk." Again referring to the Slorach review (section 1), the report makes clear the reasons why the NZFSA engaged Boyd Swinburn to conduct a review of literature: health claims made publicly for A1 milk, implications that A1 milk might pose human health risks, and consequent growing consumer concern. The reference to litigation in the article clearly involves the possible economic consequences, but there is no reference to those consequences in any NZFSA document. The statement that the litigation "in turn led" to the NZFSA review is therefore incorrect.

• The sentence starting "Publication of a book about A1 beta-casein and its dangers to health ..." states that Woodford's book "prompted another review of the health issues by New Zealand Food Safety Authority, which again found no basis to the claims." The source cited there refers to two proposed reviews: (a) the 2008 Slorach review of the NZFSA's handling of risk management and (b) a further review of the science. The NZFSA in fact conducted no further reviews itself of the science: this task was taken over by the EFSA, which resulted in its 2009 report.

• In the thread above I provided links to two news articles in which Australian consumer group Choice condemned Pura's labelling of its milk to claim it "naturally contains" A2 proteins. The labelling fact is in the article but the Choice organisation condemnation of it is not. I think that comment by a major consumer group is relevant and worth including. BlackCab (TALK) 00:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Did the first two. Nope on the third. I removed Lion's statement justifying the label. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You wrote that Lion "launched a milk product with a label ..." This makes it sound like a new product; it wasn't (notwithstanding the reporter's use of the word "relaunch"). It was the same Pura brand milk with a new label. It would be more accurate to say Lion "relabelled its Pura brand milk to state that ..." BlackCab (TALK) 02:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

launch, relaunch.. not a significant difference. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The wording "launched a product" very clearly suggests it is a new product. It is not. My wording is far clearer about what Lion did, so I don't know why you'd prefer to use misleading language. BlackCab (TALK) 02:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not responding to POV-pushing, nibbling edit requests any more. Others may choose to, or may see them differently. I will respond to fact-based things though. And I'm interested if there are major issues. But I feel this article is in pretty good shape so am probably to going to stop actively working on it soon. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing? That's quite a whack. I'm working with you to improve the article. Your wording has at times been misleading and I'm pointing out where it can be improved. BlackCab (TALK) 02:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Pura milk relabelling

User:Jytdog has reverted [6] my correction of his erroneous statement that Lion "launched a milk product" bearing a label that states its Pura milk contains A2 protein. His grounds for the revert are that I am conflicted. I have updated the COI disclosure at my user page to state that my funding arrangement regarding the A2 milk article has ceased, so unless my acceptance of a modest fee to expand an article taints me in perpetuity, I believe am no longer conflicted. That said, I will tread very carefully.

I have previously raised on the talk page the fact that the wording was incorrect. Jytdog dismissed that objection[7], suggested I was pushing a point of view[8] and said he would respond only to fact-based issues. The words "launch" and "relaunch" are marketing jargon; the ABC Rural article I added as a source (and which Jytdog has now removed) made clear the product—the popular and well-established Pura milk brand—is unchanged. The company simply altered the label. In an article on a contentious product (milk free of A1 protein), the response of other major players in the milk market should be quite clear rather than obscured by jargon. BlackCab (TALK) 23:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the current state of your COI, and thanks for Talking!

• On the editing issue.. we had indeed discussed this above. I find the distinction you are making to be hair-splitting. However, to compromise, I just amended so the article so it says "relaunched a their "Pura" milk product with a new label stating..." Hopefully that will take care of this.
• I found the use of the ABC Rural source to be biased when I took out content and the source last month, and would prefer we do not use it. The ABC Rural] article was used to support content that said something like "the consumer group Choice called it a "cynical marketing ploy"" about the relaunch of Pura by Lion... but the content was silent on the fact the ABC Rural article also quotes Choice as saying: "I think that when it comes to marketing, consumers need to remember that this is all about spin. It's all about trying to get us to pay more for essentially very similar products. First it was permeates, now it's a protein that we're all meant to fear." Using only just the "cynical marketing ploy" quote was just so, transparently POV in favor of A2 and really abusing Choice's name and obscuring their message that all the hype about A2 is "spin" and "cynical marketing". Choice's advice to consumers about A2 milk is: "With no substantial evidence to suggest that A2 milk is better for health than regular milk, you’re better off basing your buying on taste and price." So.. if we are going to mention Choice in this article as some important voice, we should also make it clear what Choice thinks of the A2 milk product.Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A2 Dairy Marketers bankruptcy

I'm going to tweak the wording describing the 2004 collapse of the Queensland company A2 Dairy Marketers to remove any ambiguity over the sequence of events. The current wording provides the following chronology: (1) A2 Dairy Marketers fined $15,000 for making misleading health claims in September; (2) A2 Corporation terminated its agreements with A2 Dairy Marketers in October and set up its own subsidiary/licensee; (3) A2 Dairy Marketers went bankrupt in (or by) November. There could be an inference from this that A2 Corp's termination of its agreements precipitated the collapse. The NZ Herald article cited ("A2 milk licensee fined ...", 4 October) as well as Woodford's book make clear that (1) A2 Dairy Marketers was fined in late September, (2) it went into receivership days later (on or before 4 October), owing more than $1 million, and (3) A2 Corporation then terminated its agreements and set up its own marketing and production subsidiary in order to keep the product on the market. ABC's "Country Hour" website cited in the article notes that in mid-November creditors voted to wind up and liquidate the company; this was "a little over a month after going into voluntary administration." BlackCab (TALK) 06:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• If the former was the case then I would question the point of mentioning the bankruptcy in the article at all. Otherwise it would just be - they got fined, A2 Corp took over - a later bankruptcy would be irrelevant. The point (isn't it?) is that the company started marketing the product, accrued significant debts in order to do so, got fined (thus nixing their capacity to market the product on the terms described to those to whom they were in debt) and then went bankrupt owing that money. A2 came in to "clean up" after what was essentially a failed "franchising" experiment. Right? The article should represent the above, perhaps without my editorialising. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A fair assessment I think, unless there's a need to mention that farmers ended up being dudded on the money they were owed. I guess the mention of the company's collapse is necessary to explain why A2 Corporation got into marketing and production, which it apparently had no initial intention to do. BlackCab (TALK) 08:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there were some farmers who were dudded but logic suggests they wouldn't have represented a significant portion of the $1 million financing/investment. Also, "A2 farmers" (or however they refer to themselves) would have then been offered opportunities by A2 Corp to recoup their losses (in the form of new business; who else would have been available to produce the product in Australia?). Purely financial investors wouldn't have had the same but that's commercial risk for you. I don't think it's worth mentioning any of that, especially since most of it would be speculation without better sourcing. Including just the farmers might present a WP:WEIGHT issue. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point and the chronology is more clear now. I agree that the former text made it seem as though termination of the license is what prompted the bankruptcy, when in reality it was the loss of the subsidy (which the article didn't state before, and now does. With respect to the business story here - one of they key factors in the business is getting dairy farmers to take the risk of switching their herds to A2, which costs time and money, and the paragraph on the launch in australia makes it clear that farmers who did that, did on the promise of making more money on their milk; they are taking risks too, as part of the A2 business model, and like investors, take a loss when an A2 business fails. I also added information that the new licensee got the A2 dairy farmers online by promising better payment terms than they had received from the bankrupt company. But the farmers' side is important from the business perspective. Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a read through newspaper archives and found there's actually a deeper story here, though ultimately probably irrelevant to this article. Information below also slightly adjusts the chronology of the revoking of the $1.27m federal grant. A series of articles in The Australian and Brisbane's Courier-Mail from December 2004 to April 2005 covered a scandal involving De-Anne Kelly, a Queensland National Party MP and then parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Regional Services and Transport, who handed out a swag of federal grants as part of the Howard government's $308 million Regional Partnerships program in the months leading up to the 2004 Australian federal election. A senate inquiry into the grants was set up by the finance and public administration committee after the Opposition claimed the program was blatant pork-barrelling ($92m of the total $123m approved in five months went to seats held or targeted by the coalition). Kelly awarded a $1.27 million grant to A2 Dairy Marketers at Millaa Millaa without seeking any audit of the company's financial affairs and the Courier-Mail said the company at the time was struggling with cash flow. The dairy factory was in the Kennedy electorate, which was heavily targeted by the Nationals. The meeting between Kelly and the company was organised by Ken Crooke, a former Queensland National Party director who had worked as a PR consultant to A2 Dairy Marketing and then quit to work for Kelly as a senior adviser. Kelly signed off on the grant the day Howard called the election; the grant was revoked (and thus never paid) after the company went into voluntary administration on 4 October. The senate committee reported back to Parliament with its findings in October 2005. See this report, chapter 6. BlackCab (TALK) 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

health claims

This line needs updating "While the company marketing A2 milk claims that milk containing A1 proteins are harmful, there is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk.[1]" should be amended to include the recent Curtin trial research. Which was a double blind randomised test and did show there were differences between the two proteins. As well at the tone of voice which seems to say that a2 milk makes this claim over a1 milk - however, while this may have been true in the past (cite references), currently this is not the marketing point of view in the UK, China or US after researching their current communications. So I think it is misleading to say this is the companies view as a whole. They seem quite pro dairy industry and pro milk? I'm happy to tweak to "there is some evidence to indicate that A2 only Milk has benefits in a small minority of subjects with milk intolerance" or if anyone has a better suggestion? Dreylax01 (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your comments and for bringing the recent publication of the clinical study!

• First, we do not include health-related content in Wikipedia based on primary studies (please see WP:MEDRS, particularly the section on "respect secondary sources". There will surely be a review article (a secondary source) that will come out in the next few months that will discuss that study - that is when discussion of it would come into Wikipedia.
• I don't know what you mean when you write "As well at the tone of voice which seems to say that a2 milk makes this claim over a1 milk" milk itself doesn't make any claims.. i don't understand.
• i don't know what this means either (who is "they"?) "They seem quite pro dairy industry and pro milk?"
• finally, can you please provide sources for marketing material used in the UK, US, and China? Would be very interested to see that. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments following up on these issues, expressed more as questions to hear some opinions. I hold no strong views on either issue.

• Tone of voice: The article's lead section says that "the company marketing A2 milk claims that milk containing A1 proteins are harmful". I've been wrestling with this statement too. A2 Milk marketing and advertising (and I think media statements) in fact no longer claim there are any specific dangers or risks associated with A1 proteins. I've read and listened to the wording of their advertising very carefully. Their website says simply that consumers find it has "made such a difference to them and their families". It says their product can "assist with your digestive wellbeing" because it is "rich in A2 beta-casein protein" (rather than warning there is something bad about A1 beta-casein protein). That said however, A2's website contains links (purportedly for health professionals) that lead to scientific material that does suggest links between A1 proteins and CHD, autism, diabetes and other diseases. Is the provision of those links sufficient to support the statement that the company "claims that milk containing A1 proteins are harmful"?
• Scientific evidence: User:Dreylax01 cites the Curtin University research (funded by A2) that has received some media coverage in Australia, both positive and critical. I'd withheld raising it because at this stage it is primary research and seems aimed only at sparking interest in bigger studies. But given that the research and its "evidence" does exist, is it true that "there is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk? Or is it just a lack of "evidence that meets Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion in an article"? BlackCab (TALK) 23:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• tone - I just looked at their website.

A1 and A2 differ by virtue of a single amino acid in a chain of 209. This has an impact on the protein structure, and subsequently how it acts in our bodies. It is established that the structural difference between A2 and A1 beta-casein variants leads to a difference in their breakdown during digestion. Current and growing evidence supports that the different protein fragments produced have an impact on aspects of digestive function, and subsequent down-stream facets of human health. The science is still catching up to what many healthcare professionals and consumers have been saying for years.

Read the latest research in this area

yeah, they are saying A1 is bad for you and A2 is not. it is lawyerized but the message is clear.

• scientific evidence. great question. WP stands with mainstream science. Per MEDRS, WP's epistemology - the way we know what "mainstream science" thinks - is via review articles and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. Until one of those addresses this clinical study, we don't know if mainstream science will call that clinical study complete crap (in other words not scientific evidence at all), or if they will say "hm, some evidence!". Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But "no evidence"? That's a very definitive statement. The Curtin researchers (and subsequent news reports, though obviously working off media releases) said exactly the opposite. I'm wondering if "no conclusive evidence" or "Scientific review studies have found no evidence ..." or similar may be better. I'm not trying to fudge this, but the use of a definitive statement seems questionable here. This may be a common issue in Wikipedia science/health articles and your answer may well be the usual one. BlackCab (TALK) 00:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

yep. if the study turns out to be judged as crap by the scientific community, it is indeed "no evidence". it is great that the study got done, it is great that it was published. it may end up getting retracted, or it may be found to have been so flawed that its results are not valid. we don't know yet. With health stuff we have to be really really leery of WP:RECENTISM. we have to wait til the scientific community weighs in (believe me, this exact conversation happens all the time. people who are really happy that study X found Y cannot wait to get it into WP. but we wait. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

COI

As I understand it, BC's conflict no longer applies. While she needs to be careful editing in areas where she might have a residual personal view, that's not the same thing as a conflict of interest. I've reverted the revert of her edit on that basis - it actually made the section more accurate and more closely aligned with a natural chronology. COI alone isn't a good enough reason to revert an edit. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

i was about to do the revert when you BlackCab did, stalwart. i agree that bc's edit was an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (correction, sorry Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC))

My arrangement with the A2 company ended last year and was not continued. The issue of COI was raised by the editor presumably after they saw the COI notice at the top of this page. It may be appropriate to remove that notice, or amend it to make clear it no longer applies. BlackCab (TALK) 05:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd certainly have no problem with that (if you can find an alternate template) but reverting just because someone has a COI isn't appropriate either way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the connected contributor template, and regarding BC's recent contribution, after reading it, rather than comment here, I just sent a "thanks" message. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That works. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BlackCab (TALK) 10:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion: Rewrite required but not possible with editor reverts

Due to ignorance and attempts to shut down balanced editing of this article. I have started my own complete re-write of this article in User space. This way I don't have editors reverting genuine changes and pushing their own POV to completely dominate the article. Just because there is a minority viewpoint that you do not agree with, does not mean it should not be in the article.

This will take me some time, but if anyone is interested it will located at: User:Aeonx/A2_Milk

When I have re-written it you can then give feedback rather than nit-picking every little edit such as changing the tense of an wording. Aeonx (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's curious that you think this is a good use of your time. What would you say the prospects are of having your version adopted? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Extremely high, especially given the current version is a start-class article, is complete rubbish and has shown little development from editors that are apparently trying to stop NPOV and article development towards a B-Class article. Aeonx (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Re-write Suggestion

Currently this article explains practically nothing about A2 milk as a consumer product; instead it flaps around regarding A2 Corporation history and dabbles poorly into the health studies of Beta-Casein. My suggestion for my re-write is:

Divide the content of this article in the following way:

1. The a2 Milk Company - Company information and History (currently the bulk of this article), a brief summary of A2 Milk
2. A2 Milk - Article explaining what A2 Milk is, and brief summary of Casein, and the a2 Milk Company
3. Casein#A1.2FA2_beta_caseins_in_milk OR CSN2- To contain the scientific, medical, Health information relating to the Beta-Caseins, with link to A2 Milk.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeonx (talk • contribs)

I foresee problems with that approach. As the Devil in the Milk book showed, the story of the A2 Milk Company is intertwined with the science: the initial concerns about BCM-7 and its possible connection with a range of diseases. To tell the story properly you will need to detail the science, which is exactly what I did in my July 2014 rewrite [9] and which sparked a reaction prompted by concern that the article was not compliant with Wiki policies on coverage of medical science. Your article would run into the same difficulties. The option is to keep the A2 Milk Company article brief, which means you may as well stick with present coverage: a quick skim of who founded it and why and their gradual expansion. Can you please remember to sign your comments. BlackCab (TALK)

High quality secondary sources

Thank you to those who have removed the primary sources and journal articles from journals with no impact factor [10]. User:Aeonx needs to follow WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What a load of baloney! Choose one article to point out and completely remove the rest. The only reason I linked references not directly to journals is because scientific sources are not always openly available to public so public freely available summary in easy to understand language forms a better reference for people. There are 'High Quality' Secondary Sources that support the viewpoint AND the non-journal references (which instead referenced them internally) that there is a scientific hypothesis that A2 milk is beneficial when compared to A1+A2 milk. [11] Aeonx (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

High quality indepedent sources? What you have provided is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

When dealing with recent Medical hypothesis there (usually) is simply not enough research and review to provide what you are looking for, and in fact this was the conclusion by EFSA which you hold so dearly! WP:MEDRS does not prohibit the use of Primary sources, there is justification for them to be used to validate that a viewpoint exist and there has been scientific investigation into it even if it is not the recommended practice. Your point is void. Aeonx (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll note a recent edit summary "fixed wording and tense. The sentence reads as tho the hypothesis has been conclusively proven against which is not the case (more BIAS). The Hypothesis has not yet been studied.)" If the hypothesis that ordinary cows milk is harmful has not been studied or tested, then it simply shouldn't be in this article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Hypothesis has had initial studies conducted, the general consensus of these preliminary studies is that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that conclusive correlations; however some demonstrate/suggest trends. Consumer reports however which tend to lead scientific discoveries in Dietetics, indicate that the hypothesis is correct. You can view many reports from: https://www.a2milk.com.au/health-professionals/review-articles-related-to-beta-casein-milk-protein/ . Aeonx (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that the A2 Milk company is working hard to influence Wikipedia. We have had one paid editor already in this area. What is your connect with them User:Aeonx? You have provided a link to their website. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You are drawing conclusions based on flawed assumptions and false information and pushing your own POV on the article. It's not balanced and does not represent all viewpoints. I'm happy to be the little guy stand up to this, because I believe WP:NPOV. Aeonx (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A website that makes you agree to a rather wonderful disclaimer denying any responsibility for the accuracy of anything they are about to allow you to read, once you have agreed that you are a HCP, and have the training and capability to understand this sciencey stuff they want to bamboozle you with. I'll go and stand in the corner, shall I? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The comments here just proof that editors here reverting update and editing this article are complete bias. So Yes maybe you should just go stand in the corner. Aeonx (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the insistence on high-quality secondary sources, there is clearly no place in this article for the comments by "Australian nutritionist Rosemary Stanton, who doubts the health benefits of A2 milk". Her comments were reported in a daily newspaper, but we have no idea of the depth of her research; for all we know they were off the cuff and based on a 30-second phone conversation with a sceptical news reporter. Judging by reports such as this and this Stanton is the go-to person when newspapers want comment from an "expert" who will scorn "fad" foods and she happily obliges every time. Would this Wikipedia article include her comment if she believed the health benefits of A2 milk? BlackCab (TALK) 22:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the level of editors' antipathy towards, and haste to remove, statements that are deemed to fall short of scientific proof, it's rather telling that Stanton's curt dismissal of claims about A2 milk lasted so long. BlackCab (TALK) 04:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

References

A2 Milk Corporation Article List

This list is from: [12] This list contain articles that represent multiple viewpoints. Currently the fact is article only supports one viewpoint being: "There is no scientific evidence to support A2 Milk benefits" (See 3rd on the List - is the EFSA report that some editors are holding so dearly as representing this viewpoint).

• Milk Intolerance, Beta-Casein and Lactose - Pal S, Woodford K, Kukuljan S, Ho S, Nutrients. (2015). 7(9), 7285-97.

*Beta casein A1 and A2 in milk and human health. Report to New Zealand Food Safety Authority Swinburn B, (2004). Prepared for New Zealand Food Safety Authority, July, 2004.

• Scientific Report of EFSA prepared by a DATEX Working Group on the potential health impact of ß-casomorphins and related peptides EFSA Scientific Report (2009). 231, 1-107.

• The A2 milk case: a critical review - Truswell A.S, (2005). Eur J Cln Nutr. 59(5), 623-31.

• A critique of Truswell’s A2 milk review - Woodford K.B, (2006). Eur J Clin Nutr. 60(3), 437-9.

• Further research for consideration in ‘the A2 milk case’ - Allison A.J, Clarke A.J, (2006). EurJ Clin Nutr. 60(7), 921-4.

*Formation and Degradation of Beta-casomorphins in Dairy Processing - Nguyen D.D, Johnson S.K, Busetti F, Solah V.A, Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. (2015). 55(14), 1955-67.

• Polymorphism of bovine beta-casein and its potential effect on human health - Kaminski S, Cieslinska A, Kostroyra E, (2007). J Appl Genet. 48(3), 189-98.

• Health implications of milk containing beta-casein with the A2 genetic variant - Bell S.J, Grochoski G.T, Clarke A.J, (2006). Crit RevFood Sci Nutr. 46(1), 93-100.

• Caseins as source of bioactive peptides - Silva S.V, Malcata F.X, (2005). International Dairy Journal (15): 1-15.

• Functional Significance of Bioactive Peptides Derived from Milk Proteins - Kamauab S.M, Lua R, Chena W, Liua X, Tiana F, Shena Y, et al. (2010). Food Reviews International 26(4): 386-401.

*Opioid peptides encrypted in intact milk protein sequences. - Meisel H & FitzGerald R.J, (2000). Br J Nutr. 84 Suppl 1, S27-31.

*Opioid activities of beta-casomorphins - Brantl V, Teschemacher H, Blasig J, Henschen A, Lottspeich F, (1981). Life Sci. 28(17),1903-9.

*Effects of milk-derived bioactives: an overview - Shah N.P, (2000). Br J Nutr. 84 Suppl 1:S3-10.

*Immunoregulatory peptides in bovine milk - Gill H.S, Doull F, Rutherfurd K.J, Cross M.L, (2000). Br J Nutr. 84(Suppl 1), S111-7.

*Heart Disease, Diabetes, Gut Immune Suppression and Epidemiology Studies - McLachlan C.N.S & Clarke A.J, (2002). Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, 12(3), 197-206.

*Casein, a prohormone with an immunomodulating role for the newborn? - Migliore-Samour D & Jolles P, (1988). Experientia. 44(3), 188-93.

• Casein-derived bioactive peptides: Biological effects, industrial uses, safety aspects and regulatory status. - Phelan M, Aherne A, FitzGerald R.J, O’Brien N.M, (2009). International Dairy Journal. 19, 643-54.

*Latent bioactive peptides in milk proteins: proteolytic activation and significance in dairy processing - Gobbetti M, Stepaniak L, De Angelis M, Corsetti A, Di Cagno R, (2002). Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 42(3):223-39.

*Beta-casein in cow’s milk: a major antigenic determinant for type 1 diabetes? - Pozzilli P, (1999). J Endocrinol Invest. 22(7), 562-7.

• Milk A1 and A2 peptides and diabetes - Clemens R.A, (2011). Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Pediatr Program. 67:187-95.

*Intestinal assimilation of intact peptides and proteins from the diet–a neglected field? - Gardner M.L, (1984). Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 59(3):289-331.

• Behavioral effects of food-derived opioid-like peptides in rodents: Implications for schizophrenia? - Lister J, Fletcher PJ, Nobrega JN, Remington G. Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior. (2015). 134:70-8.

• Gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder (Review) - Millward C, Ferriter M, Calver S, Connell-Jones G, (2008). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 16;(2):CD003498.

*Reports on dietary intervention in autistic disorders - Knivsber A.M, Reichelt K.L, Nødland M, (2001). Nutritional neuroscience. 4(1):25-37.

*Biochemical aspects in autism spectrum disorders: updating the opioid-excess theory and presenting new opportunities for biomedical intervention - Shattock P, Whiteley P, (2002). Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2002;6(2):175-83.

*Can the pathophysiology of autism be explained by the nature of the discovered urine peptides? - Reichelt K.L, Knivsberg A.M, (2003). Nutritional neuroscience. 6(1):19-28.

*Opioid peptides and dipeptidyl peptidase in autism - Shattock P, Hooper M, Waring R, (2004). Dev Med Child Neurol. 46(5):357.

• Gluten-Free and Casein-Free Diets in the Treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review - Mulloy A, Lang R, O’Reilly M, Sigafoos J, Lancioni G, Rispoli M, (2010). Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 4(3):328-39.

*Minireview. Peptides and the blood-brain barrier - Meisenberg G, Simmons W.H, (1983). Life Sci. 32(23):2611-23.

*Saturable transport of peptides across the blood-brain barrier. - Banks, W. A & Kastin A. J, (1987). Life Sci. 41(11): 1319-38.

*Effects of peptides on animal and human behavior: a review of studies published in the first twenty years of the journal Peptides - McLay R.N, Pan W, Kastin A.J, (2001). Peptides. 22(12):2181-255.

• The role of respiratory failure caused by congenital central nervous system abnormalities and the effect of beta-casomorphins in sudden infant death syndrome pathogenesis - Suminska-Ziemann B, Gos T, Jankowski Z, (2015). Arch Med Sąd Kryminol. 65(2), 99-111.

*Sudden infant death syndrome and opioid peptides from milk. - Ramabadran K & Moore B.E, (1988). Am J Dis Child. 142(1):12-3.

*Opioid peptides from milk as a possible cause of sudden infant death syndrome - Ramabadran K & Bansinath M, (1988). Med Hypotheses. 27(3):181-7.

*Relation of beta-casomorphin to apnea in sudden infant death syndrome - Sun Z, Zhang Z, Wang X, Cade R, Elmir Z, Fregly M, (2003). Peptides. 24(6), 937-43.

• Does milk increase mucus production? - Bartley J & McGlashan S.R, (2010). Med Hypotheses. 74(4):732-4.

*Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV from bench to bedside: an update on structural properties, functions, and clinical aspects of the enzyme DPP IV - Lambeir A.M, Durinx C, Scharpe S, De Meester I, (2003). Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 40(3):209-94.

*Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV (CD26)–role in the inactivation of regulatory peptides - Mentlein R, (1999). Regul Pept. 85(1):9-24.

Given this list how do you justify there is only 1 viewpoint that should be represented in the article??? Aeonx (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Which of the above A2 Milk Corporation sources would you suggest contradict the EFSA review, so that we can improve the article? -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A better question would be:- "Which of the above articles, contradict the viewpoint presented currently in the article?" And my response is: ALL OF THEM, even the EFSA review is misrepresented. Aeonx (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

While we begin by getting rid of all those more than 10 years old. We follow this by removing all the sources that do not mention the topic in question such as "Gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder (Review)" and than we eliminate the ones in journals without an impact factor. Follow that we discuss how to balance the ones left over. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not make it 5 years not 10? Where do you pull that arbitrary age from? Secondly, how about fixing the sources CURRENTLY in the article that have no impact factor or are not a secondary source? Frankly, if you are going to stop experienced editors from editing an article because you disagree with them - at least do something yourself to fix the issues in the article. Where's the balance or fairness? Aeonx (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you read WP:MEDRS yet? The evidence would suggest not. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, do you read my answers to saying I have? The evidence would suggest not. Or perhaps you would like to point out the part of WP:MEDDATE that you think justifies this? Beacause when the only year-window mentioned (not particularly relevant) is 5 years not 10 years. I mean, we can continue arguing who has/hasn't read WP:MEDRS or we can WP:IAR and make decent proper updates to article, I would of course do this except User:Doc James has listed me for Edit Warring so I can't and then this article remains a start-class article so I doubt you have the competency to do so either; thus the reason for my opinion below. Aeonx (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of helping Aeonix in his quest for sources supporting his view by striking those refs in the A2 Corp list above which we obviously cannot use because they are old, per Doc James above. I have erred conservatively and not struck ten year old refs that I suppose it could be argued could be used if they are suitable. This will undoubtedly help those looking for sources to contradict the current content. I am aware that it is bad form to edit another editors post, so please revert if what I have done is not acceptable. There are clearly a number of unsuitable refs remaining above, but perhaps striking those would be a step too far. @BC, was the list above part of your briefing from A2 when you were employed by them to rewrite the article? didn't we go round this at that time? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually I received no briefing from A2 Milk Company and barely any communication. I saw that it was a shit article and aware that Wikipedia had established a policy I believed allowed paid editing so long as a proper disclaimer was made, approached them through a PR contact and asked if they would pay me to do what I normally do for free -- fix shit articles. They agreed it was a shit article and were happy to pay. I then used my own research tools to find information which I used to rewrite and expand the article. All sources would have to be publicly available anyway so they left me to find them myself. And what an interesting exercise it was. I haven't looked through the list of sources above and at this stage I don't have the time or energy to get involved in another furious debate. At this stage I'm watching with interest how the old gang is getting back together to battle someone who is raising some valid points. BlackCab (TALK) 12:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I had forgotten that A2 paid you to write whatever you thought would be OK; seemed a little odd that a company should be so free with their money. Did they provide any feedback on the value they received? As I recall, once the hiccups over paid editing got sorted, your contribution to this article as part of the gang was substantive, and beneficial to the article in many areas. A fine example of how to do paid editing properly. My own contribution was not so grand, merely correcting a misunderstanding of the science involved, which is, oddly, the difficulty we have at the moment. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Beta-Casein Research

Additional List of Articles for Consideration: http://www.betacasein.net/research.pdf