Talk:Bifidobacterium animalis

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dietary Supplements Low‑importance

	Bifidobacterium animalis is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Learn how to spell before you write an article.

Actually, "yoghurt" is the correct spelling in some countries. As you'll notice once you've been here longer, Wikipedia uses both British Commonwealth and American spelling. The rule is that each article should be consistent, and should stick with the form of English used by the original author unless the subject is exclusively related to Britain or the United States. --Srleffler 01:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Same deal with the manufacturer's name. It's Danone in Europe, and Dannon in the U.S.

SIDE NOTE Including the company web-site may not be excessive marketing * Danone - The manufacturers of Activia

Non-Neutral POV

I erased the part that said that multinational corporations use junk science to deceive consumers in underdeveloped countries - clearly not neutral POV. The dubiousness of this whole probiotic yogurt thing is clear in all the linked articles and in this one itself.

On a somewhat similar note, I added a to the health benefits section ("well studied and ample literature exists on the efficacy of these bacteria"). That's not quite true [[1]].

References

I edited down the "weasle word" tone and added an inline cite. It still could use some clean up but this helps some. M-BMor 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a lot of references to BB-12 studies http://www.chr-hansen.com/probiotics/documentation/bb12.html , some might be independent. ~

Organism vs. Product

This article is about an organism, a dietary supplement, and a gut microflora. It is not about a product or brand by a multinational corporation. Although this aspect will remain as a controversial aspect of this organism, in the next week or so I will be making a massive overhaul to the structure. Assistance or opinions are welcomed. --Mercola over Merck 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits?

The article refers to papers highlighting the benefits of the bacterium, but the article does not describe what any of these benefits are. — Swpb^talk.edits 02:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a list of references about benefits. I added an expansion request to it so that hopefully someone will summarize these benefits. Darthveda (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

I may be mistaken, but I'm 99% sure that DN-173 010 is a strain of B. animalis subsp. lactis, not B. animalis subsp. animalis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekingscientist (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References you may wish to consider

Effects of dairy products on heterocyclic aromatic amine-induced rat colon carcinogenesis.

See the reference to "Bifidobacterium animalis DN-173 010 fermented milk" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.237.202 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]