Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:30, 14 July 2014

Food and drink Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

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 -

1. 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
2. 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)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

"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 Misplaced Pages 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 refDoc 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)

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)

"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:

• Milk
• Dairy cattle

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? Zad68 16:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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#A1.2FA2_beta_caseins_in_milk 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

BlackCab statement on extensive rewrite

My edit of the article here contained a five-paragraph lead section plus five other sections that dealt with:

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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).

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:

• 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.

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)

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)

• Start-Class Food and drink articles
• Low-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles