Talk:Milk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Check this out!

So I heard that milk really wasn't good for you and decided to find out for myself. I started doing a little research through ProQuest. My school has a subscription. If any of you have passwords to ProQuest, then check these out. The first talks about the medical risks of milk, possibly leading to schizophrenia, autism, and sudden infant death syndrome, and of course the more commonly known CVD and diabetes. The second talks about the advertising campaign put out by the dairy industry, the 3-a-day campaign. It talks about government's requirement of the industry to "pool money for advertising and promotion." Wow, I had no clue. It talks about the faulty evidence used for the advertising campaign, based on two studies, conducted by an individual with ties to the dairy industry. Sounds fishy to me; check them out. Wikipedias, and the public, have a right to know this stuff. Here are the links: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=979957941&Fmt=3&clientId=10422&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=889893461&Fmt=3&clientId=10422&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Indentation

How is it that the first line is indented and not turned into "strange" typeface? I can't see what is making it indented. Rmhermen 22:06, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Rancid

Pastorised milk doesn't turn sour. It turns rancid. A sour milk CAN be eaten. A rancid one absolutely not.

commercial endorsements?

I question the inclusion of " Famous brands of milk". Since for the most part milk is milk (with "raw milk" a signifigant exception), that seems to be more a marketing topic than a milk topic. Is there a wikipedia policy on commercial endorsements? --NealMcB 18:22, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

Not entirely true. There are many dairies that sell milk by brand (sometimes even still offering delivery). Grocery store milk is pretty much a commodity but specialty milk certainly a different story. Rmhermen 13:52, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

If a brand produces a signifigantly different product, then that should have its own article, which would contain companies who market the product. I am not a milk expert, and cannot think of any 'special milk' product like this, besides Blue Milk from Lars Inc ;)

You seem to agree that this is a marketing topic. Unless the brands are listed along with an explanation of how their milk differs, I think we should drop them or move them to something like "marketing of milk" --NealMcB 01:38, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

If these brands should be included, which is questionable, especially considering they are primarily american, it should be under the dairy article, not the milk article

Platypus

As the history comment asks, monotremes are indeed mammals. See Platypus for verification. Shane King 12:40, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Seperate Cow's Milk Section

I would like to suggest a seperate Cow's milk section, which could involved the nuitrition, ethics, and other specific information around the Food Cow's milk. The Milk page should be less devoted to Dairy and more devoted to milk. If there are no arguments against this, I will make the change myself in a few days

Most of the lionks to this page will be for cow's milk so changing it will not help most people following those links. Rmhermen 23:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Logical fallacy

"Milk has also been linked in a small number of studies to osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease, obesity and high blood pressure. Because of milks high protein content, and inability of the body to digest these, it is unable to fully absorb the calcium. Countries like China where dairy is rarely used, diseases like this are unknown."

The reader is offered a Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy). I'm a vegan vegetarian and a PETA member myself but this is not a neutral description, as the diet in those countries varies in more than the observed way and the sentence implies a causality that is not explained. At least this needs a much more thorough analysis of the topic. -- Fasten 03:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the same section appears this sentence: However breeds of cattle produce milk that is significantly different from that of others as do different mammals' from others. Huh? Wmahan. 20:06, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph referred to by Fasten. Not only was it poorly written, but no source is provided for a claim which is relatively unheard of. If someone wants to include this, please provide references, but you can't say it in such an authoritative manner- milk has hardly been definitively "linked" to any of these problems.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 01:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the removed paragraph. Maybe it can be written in a more NPOV style to describe critics' claims.

Milk has also been linked in a small number of studies to osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease, obesity and high blood pressure. Because of milk's high protein content, and inability of the body to digest it, it is unable to fully absorb the calcium. In some countries where dairy is rarely used, such as China, these diseases are rare, although it is unclear whether dairy consumption is a cause. Wmahan. 02:26, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

I've added a section with references for some of the criticisms and claimed benefits. Are there still objections to the neutrality of the article? Wmahan. 04:32, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

I removed the {{npov}} tag. If anyone disputes the current version's neutrality, please leave a note here. Wmahan. 22:05, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

I am a student of Biochemistry Department and during my presentation of a seminar, one of my professors asked me why people drink milk when they want to sleep.In otherwods, there is a link between milk and sleep and this wasn't highlighted in any part of this write-up.[Anih, A.N.(Bch/Mcb),UNN]

I think it's just because it's warm, and the warmth relaxes.

Rewriting the bottom paragraph

That bottom paragraph ("Ethical Issues") needs to be rewritten, not because of POV concerns, but because it is terribly done, and the article would be better without such weak writing. It's filled with the usual journalistic weasle wording: "many people", "some people consider", "some of the calves", "some people also believe", "some also ohject." All of these are lazy and not very helpful to the reader. Who are these "some" people and are they just the fringe, like the "some people" that don't believe the moon landing happened or more mainstream like the "some people" who believe in the abiotic genesis of oil -- still a minority, but not entirely ignored.

The rest of the article is well written, and that terrible paragraph really stands out, as if tacked on. And before anybody complains about a drive by deletion by somebody with only a single minor edit in their history, note I've been doing this for much longer, but just finally decided to get an account.

Here is the paragraph: "Many people concerned about animal welfare (especially vegans) do not drink milk. An increasing number of dairy cows are being raised on factory farms, which some people consider cruel. On many farms, the calves are separated from their mothers within days of birth to prevent the calf from drinking the milk so that humans can drink it instead. Some of the calves born by dairy cows are raised in crates for veal and are slaughtered three to eighteen weeks later. On many farms, once a dairy cow's milk production decreases, she is also slaughtered at an age that is a fraction of her natural lifespan. Some people also believe that the use of bovine growth hormone to increase milk production in cows is unethical. For these reasons, either in an attempt to reduce animal suffering or to prevent animals from being killed, some people choose to not consume milk. Some also object to drinking milk for environmental reasons."

To 24.26.131.252, I see that you wrote the section and that you are also active in the vegan areas of the site. Please don't take this as an attack on your views (I was a strict veg for ten years), but bad writing makes me cry. --Jjayson 06:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move?

I dislike the way the Milk (disambiguation) is named. I think Milk should be a redirect to the disambiguation, and this have another name, linked to from the disambig page. I feel that this makes more sense, and it's also the way just about every other dusambiguation page i have seen is done. What would you think? --Phroziac (talk) 29 June 2005 02:12 (UTC)

It's just fine as it is. Of the many article/disambiguation pages that work this way, this one is one of the clearest and easiest to decide. Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 08:36 (UTC)

It's a clear case of primary disambiguation, and the most logical way to structure the articles. 217.33.74.20 29 June 2005 11:11 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave it alone. --Phroziac (talk) 1 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

"ethnic origin"

Hi, i have recenty changed the bit about developing lactose intolerance and ethinc origin. i will explain why (sorry if it becomes hard to follow, my english skills are not satisfactory to me too, ask if you want me to try to be more clear):

Lactose intolerance is due to the lack of an enzyme called lactase that at least in the early stages of life is synthetized by certain cells in humans and mammals in general. This enzyme degrades the disacarid lactose into its constitutens, that is galactose and glucose, wich we metabolize for example as a source of energy (via further degradation through oxydation wich is combustion, much like burning wood). Like all enzymes lactase is a protein and ,like all proteins, it is a sequence of aminoacids wich is codified in the genetic code. Not all the genetic code is expressed throughout all our life in all our cells. For example, the cells that produce amilasa, the enzyme that degrades the polysacarid almidon, in our salival glands, express the genes for this enzyme, the cells in our ear do not despite having an identical copy of the same genetic code (a whole individual develops from a single cell product of the fecundation of an egg by an spermatozoid, this cell divides succesive times -and the cells originated by that division do so too, and so on...- throughout all our lives with an overall decreasing rate -unevenly distributed decrease-). Altough initially and throughout our early years humans usually synthetize lactase (as all mammals), many persons eventually start producing less and less. Lactose ingestion without lactase leads to lasctose accumulation in our digestive system wich is full of bacteria wich thrive in a sugar rich enviornment (through fermentation they obtain energy without oxygen, however they release methane, a gas). This reduction is due to regulation mechanisms of the expression of the genetic code, i urge you to read the article about genetics in this ever-bettering encyclopedia, it is very mature at the moment and should help you understand some of the known mechanisms if you are so inclined. The genetic code varies from person to person, some persons never stop synthetizing lactase, some do stop synthetizing it (slower or faster, it depends on genes and other variables, thats why regulation is usually called feedback). We have historicaly talked about races, this was due to the certainity derived from experience that when an individual had some characteristics (visible, that is a phenoype wich depends on the genotype or genes but not solely) it usually had others. This is correct to a degree, population genetics explain how some genes (genotype) become statistically more common in a certain population (interbreeding group) in a somehow stable enviornment, it does not imply superiority (it just implies diferential gene transmission rates in a gene-centric view, see williams revolution). However, since Mendel we talk about the independant segregation of genes, every human has twice the amount of genes needed. That means that it receives redundant information from the mother and the father, they had too, and so the mother and the father do not pass all their genes, the son or daughter dooes not either. There is a random segregation of genes, that is wich gene of the two that codify for the same characteristic is passed (this is more complex because segregation is not independant always, for example see sex dependant segregation and some genetic deseases as hemophilly). Our genes are that wich regulates the synthesis of lactase (altough not solely, regulation is feedback), and thus the possibility of developing lactose intolerance, depends on them. It is sais that some populations have the genes that lead to the decrease in the rate of lactase syhtesis in a more widespread way. But races or ethnic origin as "latinos", "blacks", etcetera, are not populations. Some populations in africa have had less interbreed between them than with europeans, it could be said that finding populations in the human race is now impossible due to interbreeding (wich is necessary or else we risk that genes that alone would be inocuous with themselves are fatal, as anemia, a genetic "disease" wich in its minor form has a low risk and gives immunity to malaria wich is in the mediterranean is a much more common and lethal disease, and it is here that genetical anemia is widespread, but when two persons with minor anemis breed, their sond and daughters could have the major form of this disease wich is lethal without a bone medule transplant). Forgive the long and twisted road that i took to explain this: We cannot expect seriously that (for example) a person has some gene allele (possible "value" of a gene) due to some totally unrelated allelle (as that wich leads to higher or lower concentrarion of melanin in the skins and thus to skin tone) or set of them (like that in wich we base the supposed race or ethinc origin of a person) without relying in statistics wich are as statistically correct (and wothwhile) as arbitrary and flawed (we have to demonstrate statistically that ten thousand puerto ricans have the same statistical allele frequency that ten thousand cubans or ten thousand bolivian or ten thousand brazillian or then tousand nicaraguan or else we should leave this statistics as valid as relating hair colour to profession).

Milk bottle news

I have removed a link to a 'milk bottle news' site twice. While the site is somewhat related to milk, the collection of milk bottles really adds nothing to this article. I suggest an article on milk bottles be started and the link posted there. Uriah923 14:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You can start it here, then. Andy Mabbett 16:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to list a irrelevant link on a page and then expect the remover to create a page on which it would be relevent. However, I will oblige just because I'm nice. Uriah923 16:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Reference re-added

A reference was removed without explanation. It has been re-added, as it was used to add content to the article on August 19, 2005. Per Wikipedia policy, a reference must be provided when information is "gleaned from an external souce." As that is the case here, to remove the reference would put the article in copyright violation. Uriah923 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Brands

I suggest that the list of milk brands isn't central to the article and should be moved to a seperate article. Any comment?--JBellis 20:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It was talked about last year but nothing was done. I'll do it now. Ashmoo 03:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparison Information

I particularly like the (brief) passage that compares Human milk and Cow's milk. This information, however, is found under the heading of rdST...seems (vastly) out of place to me. I'd like to see it in it's own section, comparing the nutrition information to the other variations of milk (goats, coconut's etc.). Kingerik 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What kind of calcium is in it?

Is it free calcium ions, or something imbedded in proteins that has to be broken down, or some kind of salt/base combination? --211.116.88.76 13:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Contamination

Milk in North America is highly contaminated with growth hormones. In Canada, half of the milk supply is adulterated. In the USA it is worse. It's likely to be contaminated with antibiotics as well.

Incidentally, the growth hormone issue is well-accepted. The only controversy was how badly they were contaminated compared to natural levels in the human body. Scientists didn't think dietary growth hormones were a problem until they realized they had miscalculated natural levels by a factor of 10x.

Also, breastmilk is contaminated with heavy metals. So much so that breastfeeding is an effective way of getting rid of them, the only way of getting rid of fat-soluble pollutants. It's still far better for infants than formula but it's not as healthy as it could be.

Impacts of Milk

Can we please emphasize the health risks of dairy? Here's an article that asserts that milk and dairy is harmful to one's health. I believe that not including this onfo doesnt do the Pedia justice. DryGrain 08:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it not very bad science and journalism to claim on one hand that most people worldwide are lactose intolerant and then to spend so much time discussing potential health benefits for humans (supposedly only for those who are the exception and can digest lactose into adulthood). There is obviously no health need for adult mammals of any species so why quarrel over it so much? The American Dietic Organization which represents the LARGEST group of independent nutritionist claims that adult humans do NOT require milk for health.

Obviously no food is required for one's health. Any single food can be eliminated from one's diet so long as one was mindful to compensate for whatever nutrients that the eliminated foodstuff provided. The saturated fat and cholesterol in fatted milks certainly would contribute to the risk factors for heart disease and stroke; however, fat-free and skim milks would not pose such risks. Skim milk represents an excellent low-fat source of protein, calcium, potassium and riboflavin for lactose-tolerant individuals.

Most of the anti-milk campaigning only posits tentative links and attempts to imply causal connections which haven't been empirically proven. This is not to say that milk is safe, simply that there is insufficient evidence to declare it unsafe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tymothy (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 March 2007.

MILK Linked to OVARIAN CANCER

A 2004 Swedish study, which followed more than 61,000 women for 13 years, has found a significant link between milk consumption and ovarian cancer. According to the BBC, "[Researchers] found that milk had the strongest link with ovarian cancer - those women who drank two or more glasses a day were at DOUBLE the risk of those who did not consume milk at all, or only in small amounts." source: BBC News Milk link to ovarian cancer risk 29 November 2004 Dr. R Hope 15:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• The so-called "Physician's Committee For Responsible Medicine", which produced the article you cite above, is not a physicians' group as its name implies; it is a subsidiary of PETA created to scare people into veganism by spreading medical misinformation. This group has been strongly condemned by the American Medical Association. Their stuff is pure propaganda and does does not belong on Wikipedia - at least not without extensive rebuttals from orthodox medicine. See [1] or [2] for more information. Securiger 14:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry but attempting to discredit the PCRM group by using a paper written by Consumer Freedom (mainly sponsored by the Fast Food Industry) and by linking it to PETA is logically contradicting. (It makes sense that PETA would support any health advisers that promote vegetarianism – just as the meat industry would support Atkins like advisors who promote heavy meat eating.) Besides – who do you rather trust for health advice: McDonald’s or say the vegetarian Dr Benjamin Spock or the late Carl Sagan (also vegetarian) or the most successful athlete in history Carl Lewis (strict vegetarian)? The fact is the American Dietic Organizations claims the humans can live healthy lives without milk. Is it further a mere coincidence that the most successful long-distance sportsman, 6 times ironman winner Dave Scot, AND the most successful track-athlete, Carl Lewis with 9 gold medals, have ON PURPOSE NOT consumed any milk products? Finally – does anybody remember the famous Arnold Schwarzenegger quote from the movie Pumpin Iron: "Milk is for babies"?

• Damn, I admire securiger's mastery of rebuttal info. I will assume Drygrain's proposal was naive rather than disingenuous and flesh out the point. PETA is a poor source for accurate health info because they have made it quite clear by publications, public statements, and public actions, that their primary purpose is indeed ethical-- to persuade people to stop using animals. Like many, if not most, self-righteous groups with a moral message, they pick and choose the facts to present to support their cause. At a minimum, their dishonesty lies in not presenting the balance of the evidence or contradictory evidence. If we are less charitable, we might suspect that they would not let a little thing like evidence get in the way of a persuasive argument. For instance, a quick look at one of items in the page link supplied by Drygrain illustrates both exaggeration to the point of dishonesty and a failure to acknowledge contradictory evidence. In section "4. Diabetes", three assertions are made:
  • Insulin-dependent diabetes (Type I or childhood-onset) is linked to consumption of dairy products. The wording suggests a causal link, doesn't it? It is a weak statistical link between cow milk use in the first 4 months of life, far from causal, inconsistently confirmed. The two references were studies published in 1990 and 1992, but conspicuously absent are several more recent studies which failed to confirm a strong correlation.
  • Epidemiological studies of various countries show a strong correlation between the use of dairy products and the incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes. IDDM occurs in about 1 in 400 children. If a child is fed primarily a cow milk formula before age 4 months instead of nursing, the child's risk rises to about 1 in 300.

Correlation does not imply causation. The children who receive cow milk formulas instead of being breast-fed were not randomly assigned, a number of socio-economic factors could account for why the observed children developed IDDM. Yes, it's fair to conclude that children who are consuming cow's milk formulas are going to develop IDDM, but you can't conclude that giving a child cow's milk formula will increase his risk of IDDM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymothy (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 March 2007

• • Researchers in 1992 found that a specific dairy protein sparks an auto-immune reaction, which is believed to be what destroys the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. No they didn't-- they speculated that this might be the mechanism if the causal association is true.

Just to give you a sense of the lack of straightforwardness on this issue, evidence in recent years suggests (1) a slow rise in incidence of IDDM in young children has been occurring in the US over the last 30 years, during which the incidence of early breastfeeding has been rising and milk consumption falling, and (2) that early vitamin D deficiency is associated with a several fold higher risk of diabetes later in childhood (the reader should realize that cow milk is the primary source of vitamin D in the first few years of life). If you want a more balanced recent review of the evidence, try O Vaarala, Environmental causes: dietary causes. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America (2004) 33:17-26. My suspicion is that the other PETA "medical science" claims will not withstand critical scrutiny any better. Alteripse 00:54, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be some discussion of the impacts of milk production and consumption. I agree that PETA et.al. often abuse the facts, but the FDA and the AMA have their own agendas also. I'd emphasize the enormous environmental impacts of dairy production, and look for some more balanced materials to refer to. --NealMcB 18:22, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

Regardless of the hijinks of the people over at PETA, there seems to be some noise going on the medical establishment about the health benefits of milk. I came across some discussion of the late Frank Oski's book, Don't drink your milk. Considering his former position at Johns Hopkins University Oski seems to have been established in the medical profession. Does anyone know anything about this guy? Also, I'm curious about milk and calcium. Some people say that the large amounts of protein in cow milk cancels out the positive effect of calcium and one of the studies they cite is one on bone fractures. You can check PubMed or [AJPH] for the abstract with the title, "Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study". Shawnb 14:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What about the more "philosophical" (if you can call it that) discussion regarding the unnaturalness represented by human consumption of cow milk? Two points are discussed: first, mammals (such as human beings) are not meant to keep consuming milk after the nursing period; Second, any given mammal species is not meant to consume milk from other species (adult humans consume cow milk and are generally grossed out by the idea of consuming human milk – as if cow milk was the one intended for consumption by human adults). So, it might not be a sure way to get cancer, but it doesn't mean that milk consumption is free of valid controversies. Maybe this issue should be addressed in the article? Regards, Redux 03:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - I suggest a section on controversy or backlash or something, presenting both this broad philosophical rejection of the ingestion of cow's milk and also addressing the studies that PETA quotes. It would be good to put them up, I think, if for no other reason that to rebut them all. We could quote the studies and say 'the philosophical argument remains,' for example. LockeShocke 02:40, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

That "philosophy of milk" would only be reasonable to include in describing why certain individuals avoid drinking milk. How do you define natural, and are all things unnatural dangerous? Humans do a lot of things that others certainly don't, we've wiped out certain bacteria by developing vaccines and drugs, we make tofu, we've domesticated some mammals for their flesh, others to keep us company. We construct machines which we use soley to exhaust ourselves on, we've determined our own dietary needs and attempt to follow stringent plans to fulfill all of these needs. Just because something is "unnatural", does it necessarily make it bad? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tymothy (talk • contribs) 02:19, 13 March 2007.

I don't know if I'm just noticing this or it has always been this way, but the Nutitional Issues section seems to be largely misrepresented studies. For example, I went to the acne study on PubMed, and it isn't nearly as authoritative as the wiki entry makes it out to be. No correlation was found in whole milk or low-fat milk. I'll download it when I get back on campus, but given how the last edit was to correct another study misrepresentation, that whole section seem suspect to me. --Jjayson 20:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. If you go to the acne article on wikipedia, they mention that there is no correlation between acne and specific food The acne article is very well done in my opinion and I think this article should pull out that assertion.

Then there is the calcium issue. Boy, I have never heard someone say milk lead to bone issues. I don't mean to be rude, but someone is smoking something funny here. Calcium is an inorganic element, and I find it hard to believe there is any difference between milk calcium and plant calcium. I could have seriously slept in my chemistry class, but I doubt that is the case.

Calcium is an alkali metal and I don't think you'd like to ingest it in this form. This leaves you with different choices of calcium salts, some of which are better absorbed than others. The calcium ions in cow's milk are poorly absorbed (about 30%), partly because of the high phosphate content, partly because they are bound to casein. The calcium ions in vegetables are typically better absorbed (50-60%). This does not support claims that milk actually harms bones. These claims are more likely based on:

• High content of acid-forming protein.
• High content (particularily in processed lean milk) of retinol.
• And, compared to some other calcium sources, the low content of Vitamin K.

Most frequently cited in support of these arguments is the Nurses' Health Study ([[3]]), in which milk consumption and risk of hip fracture were positively correlated (that is, the more milk the women consumed, the higher their risk of fracture). The problem is that, particularily in people, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The one thing that everyone but the most optimistic advocates of cow's milk agrees on, is that this (the largest study so far that examined, among many other things, the correlation between milk consumption and fracture risk in women) does not provide much evidence for the notion that cow's milk actually protects against bone loss. For more information on this point of view, see [4]. Aragorn2 19:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally most of the critism have to do with calcium. Where not join them into one point instead of making a long chain of critism? Or is there any difference between these points?

• Some milk is rich in saturated fat, which studies have linked to increased risk of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease. Low-fat and non-fat forms of milk may mitigate any such risk.
• Critics dispute the claim that drinking large amounts of milk can reduce the risk of bone fractures, especially in the elderly. Studies have failed to associate high calcium intakes with lower risk of hip and forearm fractures in men[5] or women[6].
• Critics of milk claim that plant-based sources of calcium are preferable, on the grounds that animal proteins in milk causes leaching or excretion of calcium from bones.[7] Such critics refute the claim that milk prevents osteoporosis and make the counterclaim that milk, in fact, contributes to that disease.
• Critics also make the claim that the protein content of cow’s milk can act to block the absorption of calcium and cause the human body to produce antibodies that are believed to damage the pancreas, leading to the development of type 1 diabetes.
• A study suggests a correlation between high calcium intake and prostate cancer.[8]. There is no evidence that any such problem is specific to milk. A review published by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research states that at least 11 human population studies have linked dairy product consumption and prostate cancer.
• Scientific evidence has also been unable to support the claim that the consumption of cow’s milk as a source of calcium reduces the risk of osteoporosis. On the contrary, epidemiological research has linked the countries with the highest dairy consumption rates (for example, the United States, Sweden and Finland) to the incidence of osteoporosis. But no studies have shown the same in New Zealand, which has the highest per capita consumption.

Six point, I would that is being hopelessly redudant. Some of these points need to be prunned asap.

This discussion is fascinating, and although I am not qualified to comment, I seriously think you folks should check out www.milkprocon.org to find all the studies, sources, statements, etc. on nearly every single subject you've raised. I realize that you may delete my comment and that's fine. I am trying to be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.217.26 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pasturisation & UHT

UHT milk is very popular in Europe, whereas in North America, most of the milk sold is pasteurized. is confusing. UHT milk is pasturised. Also, as far as I am aware, UHT milk is only a minority of milk sales in Europe.--JBellis 19:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC) I found some figures on European milk consumption here [9], which gives figures of 54% UHT, 42% pasturised and 4% Sterilised although there are wide variations by country. Sterilised milk probably deserves its own page as its the basis of flavoured milks.--JBellis 17:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It was explained to me that milk is almost always pasteurized. If the customer is close to the cows, this is usually sufficient. If the milk is expected to be warehoused, it will be ultra-pasteurized. This uses higher temperatures and makes a product that is more shelf-stable. The milk has been 'cooked' more, changing the taste somewhat.

Milk from national chains is often ultra pasteurized. For example, I can purchase Pasteurized Horizon Organic Milk from my local Safeway store. However, at the Super Target store in the same city, the product is Ultra-pasteurized. At my Safeway store, the cream products are also ultra-pasteurized, and it lasts MUCH longer than the pasteurized product from the dairy a few miles away.

Finally, although it wasn't described as 'UHT' to me, it might be the same as aseptic milk. On the other hand, this might be JBellis's "Sterilised". It is relatively rare in the US. I've got a little box of it in front of me right now in a TetraPak TetraBrik package (juice box), intended as a convenience food to be paired with single-serving cereal bowls. The only thing it says about the process is small text on the side of the box, "This modern process with ultra high temperature pasteurization and package maintains the milk fresh and natural for several months without refrigeration." Products like Yoohoo also use aseptic milk, and there was a discussion on Everything2.com about "Milk in Bags" being aseptic milk provided by the govermnent. --Mdwyer 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have two cartons of Tesco's own brand UHT milk in my cupboard. I've had them since September (2005 assumed), and the best-before date is 24 June 06. They're my emergency supply, and I find this milk is slightly watery and best refrigerated (having it warm and straight from the carton is a little insipid) but I don't notice any taste difference, but that may be because I usually eat it with cereal. Lady BlahDeBlah 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it tasted sweeter than regular milk -- sort of like how scalded milk tastes. I did drink it warm out of the box, though, so it could be exactly as you describe. Taste is SO subjective! I've never seen UHT milk in stores in Western America. I think we would use dry milk in cases where you would use UHT. I was finally able to find my UHT milk in an office supplies catalog!! Ewww... --Mdwyer 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

milksucks?

I cannot be the only person who thinks linking to a PETA run website for this is BAD. PETA has an agenda and are well known for their sensationalism and misrepresentation of data. While I will accept that there are studies linking milk to certain health issues, I believe finding a neutral site that is medically respected and presents data from all sides is a more appropriate source to link then milksucks.com. -Thebdj 05:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is not to evaluate the sides of an arugment and define truth, but to present both. PETA does have an agenda, but they manipulate data no more than industry lobbying groups. They are a vocal public critic of the dairy and meat industries and it is therefore important that they be represented here in some form. You may wish to rewrite portions of the article relating to this, and you are welcome to do so. Kellen ^T 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

PETA has more than an agenda like industry entities. They actively support the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The ALF is labeled a domestic terrorist organization by the FBI, responsible for many firebombings of laboratories. Not exactly the kinds of people that have any credibility. 66.59.114.110 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That is tangential. PETA's endorsement of any controversial group does not lessen the influence and presence PETA has in regards to this issue. PETA's affiliations are irrelevant in general - PETA is a vocal opponent of milk/dairy products and as such deserves to be at least mentioned, even in passing, in an article about the product. You couldn't write an article about, for example, the history of the American meat industry without once noting Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" simply because it doesn't portray the topic in a favorable light. It is possible to objectively mention PETA, without showing approval OR disapproval of their actions. For instance, simply say "some organizations, such as PETA, are known for their propagation of the negative effects of dairy consumption" - maybe in even more neutral wording. If PETA were sensationally pro-dairy (and the website were milkrocks.com), would this argument even be present? 69.116.227.205 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a lot of independant research done on the bad effects of dairy consumption. For example,The China Study research project culminated in a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, a survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan. This project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease. The findings? “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored,” said Dr. Campbell. What protein consistently and strongly promoted cancer? Casein, which makes up 87% of cow’s milk protein, promoted all stages of the cancer process.

Milk Flavourings

I just wanted to mention that adding about 2 or 3 table spoons of Maple Syrup to milk makes a delicious drink. Accountable Government 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Other animals' milk used for human consumption?

Can anybody add useful information on the use and properties of other animals' milk used for human consumption, e.g. goats, sheep. I am aware for example that milk from these animals is sometimes used by people with lactose-intolerance (goats' milk is sold on the shelves of my local supermarket even!) . I don't know enough about the properties of these other 'milks' to add a section, but I think it would be useful to balance the main article: I came to this article because I was looking for information about goats milk.... (MarkG)

I too came looking for goat milk or sheep milk (I say "goat's milk" and "sheep's milk", by analogy to "cow's milk" and "mother's milk", but I came from the tzatziki article, which uses the non-possessive construction. Sorry I can't add anything useful on this topic. However, what exercises me is the anthropocentric assertion in the article (reiterated in the list at the top of this talk page) that humans are the only animals that drink milk after the nursing stage of infancy, and the only ones that drink the milk of other species. This is patent nonsense. Many cats routinely drink milk, usually in my experience cow's milk but I suppose they would drink the milk of other species if they had access to it. Just as with many humans, cow's milk causes digestive problems for many cats, but to say that (given access) they don't drink it is just silly. --Haruo 09:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies. I was writing from memory after having read my source (McGee's On Food and Cooking) a few hours earlier, and I seem to have inflated the claim: he says (p 14)

In the animal world, humans are exceptional for consuming milk of any kind after they have started eating solid food.

My bad. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you parenthetically undermined your own argument - you specified that cats drink milk when "given access." Yes, domesticated cats drink milk when they are given milk to drink, but do cats in the wild do the same thing? I think the basis of the argument is the whole "natural" factor - other animals do not typically, of their own instinct or will or whatnot, drink milk of other species, whereas humans do this regularly. Whether or not they will do it when presented with milk in a bowl is beside the point. When viewed that way, the claim is sound. 69.116.227.205 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still think it's an obvious fallacy (you can find folks who have published flat-earth documents, too; doesn't mean they're right. Plus Kyle key's latest emendation actually worsened the syntax. So I'm going to remove the sentence again. Please think of the cat before reverting, and don't use "so well as" like he did. ;-) --Haruo 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, Haruo; The lead is improved without that sentence. (I wasn't the one who put the sentence back in last time). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But as a note -- Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking is I believe an extremely reliable source; no need to impugn it by association with flat-earthers, please! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Snake milk?

I've heard it's possible to milk a snake. Is this true? Should this be included in the article?

Snakes, not being mammals, don't have milk. I think the extraction of venom from snakes is sometimes called "milking". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes is correct. The process of extracting venom from posionous snakes is often referred to as "milking" the snake. I wouldn't pour any of it in your coffee, though. User:Mechafox 7 August 2006

Composition and nutrition

I thought that the information on whale milk was appropriate in the Composition and nutrition section. As it is now, the section poorly illustrates the range of composition of milk in different animals. Prometheus^-X303- 00:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The secton is (partly) about "nutrition" -- that generally means nutrition to humans. And humans rarely if ever consume whale milk. It's a very unusual milk. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally. However, the article begins describing milk, well, in general. There is no indication that the article places enphasis on human consumed milks until later. The C & N section begins The composition of milk differs widely between species. Again, no emphasis on human consumed milk. Maybe the section could be rewritten to add this emphasis? The whale milk info is good where it is. Prometheus^-X303- 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the word milk...

come from Molech? He was also called mlk, right? --Vehgah 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I beleive that it came from an old celtic word, "Maelkeng", which was the udder of a cow. Improper translations led to the act of "Milking" and then to the noun itself, "Milk".

P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster seems pretty certain that 'milk' comes from Old High German: Middle English, from Old English meolc, milc; akin to Old High German miluh milk, Old English melcan to milk. Ashmoo 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; I've never seen that particular derivation before. Sehr intressant. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've double checked (MW is not always correct) and Etymology Online seems to agree with the Saxon origin. Ashmoo 01:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Added some information

I added the "History of Cow Milk" and "Animal Milk and vegetarianism" sections. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that there is any argument whether one who drinks milk is a vegetarian. Vegans avoid animal products and vegetarians are simply against the direct eating of meats in varying degrees (though a strict vegetarian will go as far to make sure the animal products they are consuming did not result from animals who were fed other animals, is believed to occur in some farm environments). Certain arguments like the eating of gelatin products is up to the opinion of the vegetarian, but unless one considers themself a true Vegan they will most likely still consume dairy, possibly eggs, and may wear animal based clothing. —supspirit 11:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Side-effects?

The side effects section has this: "Critics claim that drinking large amounts of milk can increase risk of bone fractures, especially in the elderly [citation needed] or women[3]. This is due to the unpublicized fact that the acidic nature of milk actually depletes one's calcium. [4]" But if you actually read citation 4 depletion of calcium due to the acid in milk is never once mentioned. I think this should be dropped, because it appears to be baseless.

It should. I've seen two different explantion for why milk should be bad for your bones, one being acidic as you mentioned and the other being it's high protein content. Now... milk is not acidic, it has a pH of 7 and even if it was acidic the claim doesn't make any sense because the acid would be neutralised in your digestive system. The high-protein call is also baseless as milk simply isn't that high in protien.. and even if it wasn't, wouldn't all sources of protein be equally bad for you? Atzel 17:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Moo Juice?

I was wondering if anyone thought that the article should mention "Moo Juice", another word for milk. Mightily Oats 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's "udder" nonsense.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bagged in Canada

The article had claimed that in Canada bagged milk was most the most common packagaing available. I am located in Calgary (Western Canada) and while it is true that bagged milk was common at one time, it has been absent from the store shelves here for several years, and instead we favour the four litre plastic jugs, and that is the prevalent (and largest) packaging available. Can any fellow Canucks (or anyone else for that matter) comment upon whether bagged milk is still available or common in other regions of Canada? I haven't seen it in any of the western provinces or in the maritimes where I have been, is it still available in Quebec or Ontario for instance? Is it still even common anywhere? mhunter 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently still common in Ontario[10]. Rmhermen 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bagged milk is incredibly common in Ontario, especially Kingston. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bagged milk seems to be common in Ontario in general, at least central/south/east. It is not in Manitoba or anywhere out west AFAIK, where it is found in either 250 ml to 2 litre cartons and jugs, and 4 litre jugs. Halogenated 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bagged milk seems to be the most common in southern ontario, however cartons and jugs are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.115.79 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here in Nova Scotia, cartons seem to be most common, though jugs are not uncommon either. Bagged milk is nowhere near as common as it once was, though. 71.7.196.139 15:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in Vancouver and bagged milk is the very small minority. 24.84.36.82 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Needed

Human milk is fed to infants through breastfeeding, either directly or by the female expressing her milk to be saved and fed later

I've never heard the term "Female expressing her milk" and have no clue as to what this could mean, perhapse this article could express this statement better. Deathawk 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Expressing" or "to express" is the only word I heard used for a mother extracting her own milk for later use. — Donama

"In Scotland"

Removed this paragraph added by anonymous contributor user:155.136.80.2

In Scotland the composition of Skimmed Milk varies from that commonly found in other parts of the world, in that it is composed of 3 parts water and 1 part full fat milk. This avoids the expense of the traditional skimming method and produces a product of a similar quality but at a lower price point.

Thanks to the sceptic who added "citation needed"; but I've lived in Scotland all my life, can remember when semi-skimmed milk became popular during the early 1980s... and I have *never* heard of this! It was also added by an anonymous contributor, and smacks of a blatant "mean Scots" hoax. For this reason, I believe that even "citation needed" is too tolerant; the original contributor needs to either provide a credible link or leave it out.

195.112.43.35 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

White blood cells/ Somatic cells / pus

I agree that the wording I had in there had some POV issues. I'm not happy with the new wording either, though. But I'm also not feeling entirely confident in the facts. Is it fair to say that:

• Somatic cells can be an awful lot of things, including white blood cells?
• There are a lot of different kind of white blood cells?
• Pus -- as defined by our article -- consits of dead and/or(?) living leukocytes (white blood cells), perhaps only of a specific kind (neutrophils) in a "fluid known as liquor puris"?
• http://www.notmilk.com/lawbreakers.html has a sentence that says "A dairy cow filters ten-thousand quarts of blood through her udder each day and uses dead white blood cells (somatic cells) to manufacture her milk. These dead cells are pus cells."

Adding this up, it seems to me that -- in the context of milk -- "somatic cells", "white blood cells", and "pus" are all synonyms... and it may be fair to point out that it is the anti-milk activist sites alone that tend to employ the term "pus". Thoughts? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are two good, seemingly neutral articles on the subject. The official Google answers are very detailed, but also misleading, based primarily on official U.S. and dairy industry numbers; but look at the answers given by "spectrum69-ga" at the bottom of the first page, and "hersolutions4u-ga" on the second page. Both list, once again, seemingly neutral sources for their conclusions: [11] [12] Hope this helps to aid in your understanding of the subject. Kyle Key 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The term pus according to wikipedia clearly states that it is composed of somatic cells and other components. The presence of somatic cells alone (also wrong term to really be applied, many cells in the body are somatic), or more correctly white blood cells or phagocytes, are not sufficient to use the term, pus. These cells circulate throughout your bloodstream - does that make your blood pus? The citation I removed is clearly a partisan web site with no credibility. Use proper citations or don't post the information. Read up on what constitutes a proper wiki citation. Halogenated (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add that just because someone makes these claims and it is under the heading "Controversy" does not mean anything should go up. Much of this section does not conform to the NPOV mandate, and simply represents the opinions of some very fringe groups and individuals. Otherwise all wikipedia will end up being is a series of tabloid articles. If there is a good source, and it is written from a NPOV, then it should eb put up. Otherwise it simply makes the article a WP:SOAP and will not meet the everyday good article standing.Halogenated (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "milk containing 400 million pus cells per litre can be sold legally for human consumption", that "one teaspoonful of milk could contain up to two million pus cells" and that their can be "Up to 100 million pus cells in every glass" . See also Viva!s MilkMyths, PETA's MilkSucks and NotMilk Robert C Prenic (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All of which are not credible or suitable references . Open a biology text, you will never see the words "pus cell", or a notation of "drops of pus" anywhere, because it doesn't exist. Besides, it's irrelevant. White blood cells are no more problematic to consume than RBC or plant cells. It's mostly protein and lipids. Statements like the above are strictly scare tactics and based on the "ick" factor, and using words like pus are weasel words. Bone marrow is chalk-full of "pus", and is the source of all immune cells. It makes great soup. Halogenated (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Non credible sources? References to these statements are as follows:

• MDC, 2004. Dairy facts and figures 2003. Compiled and published by the Milk Development Council, Cirencester, UK. Available from: http://www.dairyuk.org/pdf/MDC_DFactsFig_1612.pdf [Accessed July 26 2005].
• Berry, E. Middleton, N., Gravenor, M. and Hillerton, E. 2003. Science (or art) of cell counting. Proceedings of the British Mastisis Conference (2003) Garstang. 73-83.
• Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995. Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1086, London, HMSO.
• Blowey, R. and Edmondson, P. 2000. Mastitis control in dairy herds. UK: Farming Press Books.
• Grosvenor, C.E., Picciano, M.F. and Baumrucker C.R. 1992. Hormones and growth factors in milk. Endocrine Reviews. 14 (6) 710-28.
• White Lies: The health consequences of consuming cow’s milk. by Dr Justine Butler, Professor T. Colin Campbell, PhD

(Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY), Professor Jane Plant CBE (DSc, CEng) Life Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, Professor of Applied Geochemistry, Imperial College, London. Edited by: Juliet Gellatley BSc DipDM

Robert C Prenic (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Freezing point and boiling point

I guess the freezing and boiling points are some kind of averaging of milk's constituent molecules and be close to 0 degrees C and 100 degrees C respectively. Does anyone know more information? — Donama 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The freezing point of milk is "usually in the range of -0.512 to -0.550° C with an average of about -0.522° C." according to [[13]]. Incidentally, all milk is tested to make sure the freezing point is normal. Different freezing points point to added water (adding water raises the freezing point closer and closer to 0 C). ScottK 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Article split

I have undone the split-off of Milk (beverage) from this article -- at this point I don't think it accomplishes much, other than making it really hard to tell what should be in this article and what should be in that one. This article needs a big reorganization still though, I'll admit that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-milk POV

I feel that the nutritional benefits/detriments are not a balanced representation of the generally accepted current insights. Apart from lactose intolerance and saturated-fat content I suspect that the other issues mentioned could be balanced by a vast number of publications explaining the positive affects of milk. I will list my concerns point by point. Han-Kwang 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• White blood cells The idea might spoil your appetite, but it is presented as a health concern. I'm removing this point.

Milk contains varying levels of white blood cells, depending upon the health of the source animals; controversy surrounds whether these are simply somatic cells or, in an alternate form, pus . In the United States, one to seven drops of these cells are in every eight-ounce glass of milk, varying by state, according to guidelines set up by the Food and Drug Administration and statistics reported by the dairy industry . Only one state out of all fifty, Hawaii, has a cell count lower than the dairy industry's recommendations; seventeen states produce milk that would be illegal to sell based on somatic cell limits in Europe.

• insulin-like growth factor-I Kahan, Z et al., Elevated levels of circulating insulin-like growth factor-I, IGF-binding globulin-3 and testosterone predict hormone-dependent breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a case-control study. Int J Oncol. 2006 Jul;29(1):193-200. Pacher, M. et al., Impact of constitutive IGF1/IGF2 stimulation on the transcriptional program of human breast cancer cells. Carcinogenesis. 2006 Jun 14 - Does anyone have numbers that the concentrations present in milk are relevant for those used in this study?
• Calcium and prostate cancer Chan, J.M., Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Oct;74(4):549-54. (disputed publication). The abstract shows that there were two comments on this article, which suggests that the results are disputed. Does anyone have access to the comments?
• Milk and calcium excretion - I'm removing this point. None of the references mentions diary, except for one (Feskanich et al) that only claims that high calcium-intake alone does not prevent (rather than cause) osteoporosis, which seems in line with what is known about osteoporosis.

Clarification: the other studies relate high protein intake to calcium excretion, which might apply as well to meat, soy products, and other legumes. This is not a specific milk-issue. Han-Kwang 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Consumption of milk is reported to increase the risk of bone fractures, due to animal protein's effect on intensifying urinary calcium excretion. It is because of this that milk may in fact contribute to osteoporosis, rather than preventing it as is commonly thought .

• Milk and weight gain - I'm also removing this point: the first reference claims that the difference can be attributed solely to total calorie intake and the 2nd reference supports only the primary research claim of a possible study deficiency.

A study published in June 2005 of 9- to 14-year-old children found that children who reported drinking the most glasses of milk per day gained the most weight. However overall calorie intake was a better predictor of weight gain. Researchers were surprised by their conclusion that weight gain was associated with dietary calcium and low-fat or skim milk, but not dairy fat. A limitation of this study was that it was based on self-reported dietary intake, a method which can be inaccurate even when administered to adults

Han-Kwang 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

(1) I added at least the last two of those claims [weight gain and calcium excretion - Han-Kwang]. My intention was to report the criticisms of milk as described by the critics, since I personally had neither the time nor the expertise to judge their validity. I added the verifiable claims that I could find from anti-milk organizations, not to advance any POV but to report the verfiable fact that critics were making those claims. If the summaries weren't accurate representations of the studies' conclusions, it was because of my lack of knowledge rather than a lack of neutrality.

(2) I think your criticisms above are probably well-placed. But you removed some studies because they don't prove that milk has any harmful effects, whereas I think they were added because they were used by critics to argue that milk might be harmful; such arguments might be flawed, but they are verifiable. As you say, some of the criticisms "could be balanced by a vast number of publications", so wouldn't it be better to do that by adding studies with contradictory evidence? Wmahan. 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I'll write my reply after yours in forum style since it will be hard to attribute comments if this discussion is going to be as long as some of the previous ones.

Re 1: OK. Thanks to the references they were certainly verifiable, and as far as I am concerned the verification failed. If we regard the points as an overview of criticism, then I think they belong in a separate section about controversies around effects on the health rather than being presented as known issues. In this case the article could also use some background information about the anti-milk movement. Is it really a well-known debate in the US?

Re 2: I am a physicist, not a nutrition expert and moreover I can only access the abstracts of most articles. Hence I don't think I'm the right one to find such studies, even though I think one could find at least 10 studies that show positive effects of dairy consumption for every single negative study.

Han-Kwang 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

1: Regarding a separate section, that's exactly how I added them to the article (I created a new section on the critics). For better or worse, the article was edited extensively in the year or so since then. I wouldn't say the debate is well-known in the US, but some of the critics are vocal.

2: I understand your concerns, and I too can only access the abstracts. I'm OK with leaving the claims out of the article, at least until someone who can put them in the proper context comes along. At least they will still be available on the talk page in case anyone wants to investigate further. I just wanted to explain my reasoning for adding the studies you removed, as well as some still in the article. Wmahan. 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

This article states that "South Australia has the highest consumption of flavoured milk per person, where Farmers Union Iced Coffee outsells Coca-Cola, a success shared only by Inca Kola in Peru and Irn-Bru in Scotland." However, the Irn Bru article says "It has long been the most popular soft drink in Scotland, outselling even Coca-Cola, but recent fierce competition between the two brands has brought their sales to roughly equal levels (perhaps leaning to Coca-Cola) [1]. This success in defending its home market (a feat claimed only by Irn-Bru, South Australia's Farmers Union Iced Coffee, Peru's Inca Kola and Sweden's Julmust)". Which is correct regarding Julmust? silsor 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Julmust is a seasonal drink (jul=yule/christmas) and is only sold and drunk during november-january. During those months it does however outsell Coca-Cola. Atzel 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Collaboration

As this is now the GA collaboration I believe that our first task to be to do the work on the to-do list. Does anyone else have any suggestions? Tarret 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The to-do list looks more like a suggestion board, what with all the "What if we...." sentences :/. However, there do seem to be several sentences in the article with weird prose and I think I spotted a run-on or two, but they might be gramatically correct.... Homestarmy 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The to-do list seems hijacked by the anti-milk crowd. It also needs updating to reflect the current state of the article, e.g. there's nothing about calves being a useless byproduct now. Kjetilho 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiled milk

I know from experience that spoiled pasteurized cow's milk (don't know what stage) gets creamy and tofu-like when microwaved. -Joe Schme^(ssages)dley 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

processing section

Most dairies are local companies,

In the United States, I would say quite the opposite. I would need to find a citation for this though.

However, unpasteurized milk can harbor harmful disease-causing bacteria such as tuberculosis...

The only farm I know of that sells raw milk to a cheese processor has the milk tested before pickup. If the farm owners then drink the milk from their own cows, it would be tested fairly soon.

Also, the Spoilage section may belong in this section. --Midnightcomm 02:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Churning Milk

I reverted version 88720824 because, to the best of my understanding, only cream will turn to butter. The cream separates from the milk, mixing it further will not give one butter. However, I may be wrong. If anyone has documentation about getting butter from whole milk, I would welcome it. --Midnightcomm 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See Butter: "In African and Asian developing nations, butter is traditionally made from sour milk rather than cream. It can take several hours of churning to produce workable butter grains from fermented milk.<ref>Crawford et al, part B, section III, ch. 1: Butter. Retrieved 28 November 2005.</ref>" —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I copied part of that sentence from the Butter article and added it to the Milk in language and culture section. --Midnightcomm 03:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Considering the topic, I'm a little surprised by the volume of vandalism to this page.. It's vandalized at least once an hour.--Vercalos 18:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes one wonder how long we can (or should) cling to allowing anon's edit pages... mhunter 22:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Grade A vs Grade B milk

I am not sure when this was put in here, but it is very specific to the USA only and not relevent to the discussion of milk as a whole and ought to be removed. It would be better suited to a separate article regarding american milk production. Otherwise, we could produce an exhaustive list of milk grades and production across the world. I will wait a few days to see if there is any objection this this, otherwise I will remove this section. Halogenated (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This information is appropriate to the English language article. Do not remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Gandydancer – Could you please explain your reasoning? Your bald instruction "do not remove it" needs justification (and dare I say perhaps gentler phrasing...?). I think Halogenated's point was that the US classification is relevant only to the US and not to other English language readers, and so would be better in a locally relevant article. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for being so harsh, if that is the case. Grade A and grade B milk information is important to English speaking people in the US, and perhaps to other English speaking people as well. It seems obvious to me that it should be included in the Milk article. What article do you feel would be more appropriate to contain this information? Gandydancer (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for graceful apology. It may be obvious to you, but clearly it is not to Halogenated (nor really yet to me). Could you explain your reasoning? Why would someone in, say, Australia or India be interested? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I would find it interesting to learn whether or not Australia or India allow only "grade A" milk for sale as drinking milk. It would be better to add that information than to take out the information we've got in the article. Halogenated is concerned that "we could produce an exhaustive list of milk grades and production across the world". I do not see that as a concern, and I would like to see a few links that show this information. And again I ask, which Wikipedia article do you feel would be more appropriate for this information?Gandydancer (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure what "speaking English" has to do with it. Anyone who lives in the US, regardless of what language s/he speaks, may come into contact with "Grades" of milk. Except I don't see that Grade B is ever sold to the public, per se. Just local (national) legislation that everyone now takes for granted. No one sends anyone to the store to purchase a quart of "Grade B" milk!

Probably there should be a national section anyway for country specific legislation. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the two grades in the US can't be covered, but at the moment we have far too much detail on it, and its presence as a whole section in its own right upsets the balance of the article's world view. We do have a section later on, "Distribution", which covers various area including the US. Might it be better to include this info there, and retitle the section something like "Cultural variation" or "International variation", and include information on different grades in other parts of the world too? This would essentially incorporate Student7's suggestion in an existing section, without having lists of countries in two different parts of the article.

The article is getting quite long and unwieldy, and I wonder if we ought to think about splitting...? Richard New Forest (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Student7, I think you made a good edit regarding the grading of milk. I believe this information is proper for the article, but it is better moved down with the heading you have added. Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add this information: A1 and A2 beta casein in cow's milk

{{edit semi-protected}}

There are two main forms of the cow's milk protein beta casein known as A1 and A2 beta casein. The A2 beta casein is the original form of beta casein produced by cows. The A1 form appeared in dairy cattle and was spread throughout dairy herds across Europe due to natural genetic mutation for hundreds or thousand years. It has become the common form of beta casein in many breeds of cows.

Traditional cattle breeds such as the zebu, and related animals such as the water buffalo and yak all still only produce the A2 type of beta casein. Generally the Guernsey breed of cattle have the highest frequency of the A2 gene, and thus Guernsey herds produce milk with high levels of A2 type beta casein.

a2 Milk™ produced in Australia may provide protection from a range of intolerance responses to cow's milk protein and may assist digestive wellbeing.

There are over 100 scientific studies to support the A2 story.

References:

http://www.a2australia.com.au http://www.a2australia.com.au/scientific-resources/a1-and-a2-beta-casein.php (You need to agree with terms) Brainsling (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not for advertising your company or orginisation. Also, references to support it should usually be independant of the subject. Also, that text is a copyright violation of a2Australia Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible rename of "Controversy"

Since it involves inevitable biology, it doesn't seem like it can be subject to legal issues and such. The section could do with a better name, be split or be merged into some of the other ones. mechamind90 02:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Single instance of replacement

A sentence reads "The Boulder, Colorado school district banned flavored milk in 2009 and instead installed a dispenser that keeps the milk colder." This is all well and good and probably a real good idea, but it is one district out of about 1000 in the US. And this is an article about Milk, worldwide. It seems inordinate to mention it at all here. Maybe "Education in Colorado" or "Health in Colorado" but not here until at least an entire state does this and a large state at that IMO. Student7 (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Text error

Hey whoever is reading this sorry I know I'm probably doing this wrong but I noticed there is a typo under "controversy". It should say "it is" at the end of the first paragraph but it says "is it" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.254 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

im not sure if im doing this right... but in controversy at one point it says "is it" but should say "it is" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.29.22 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Units of Ca in milk

In the table listing the nutritional content of different milks, Ca concentration was given in IU (international units). This also is the unit used in the cited source. However, there is no such thing as an IU of calcium. Calcium content is measured directly in units of mass, usually mg. This appears to be a typographical error in the source document that was copied in the table. I have corrected the table, and added a link to the USDA nutritional database, which is a better source in any case.Struvite (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Possessive on "cow's" milk

An editor has removed the possessive on "cow's milk" and changed it to "cow milk." This may be more formal English and even approved, but it sure sounds funny because no one uses it in regular speech! I think would rather see it changed back. Student7 (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed this back to "cow milk" meaning milk derived from cows. If it were the cow's milk, I suppose the cow would still have possession of it. The references use cow milk, and as silly as it may sound to you, the refs rule. Bob98133 (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is some information here from a grammer expert who says it is cow's milk instead of cow milk http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/340600179/m/2916096772 - and she includes references to two grammer books too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.46.220 (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2010

British usage would always be "cow's milk", and likewise "sheep's milk", "goat's milk", "horse's milk", "mother's milk", but curiously "buffalo milk", "human milk", ("cat milk", "okapi milk" etc) and for breeds, "Holstein milk", "Jersey milk", "Ayrshire milk" "Red Poll milk" etc. Don't know why and can't think what the rule is (though the ones with the possessives do seem to be the more commonly discussed milks). Neither version is more grammatically "correct": it's just usage, and incidentally Google hits on each version for "cow" and "cow's" are not too different. Don't know what other dialects do: this article seems to be written in American. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Americans derived their possessives from the British. It is universally called "cow's milk" in the US. Probably Canada, too. I agree with all RNF's comment, including the exceptions. And agree that it is "usage" not grammar. Have to defer to dialect owner here? Let's hope for UK/American or Canadian!  :) Student7 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is it that says "cow milk" then...? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just changed it.

Just realized something "profound" that usually isn't too helpful (!). Because the Americans left "home" first, if they agree with the Brits, everyone does! Possessive's were clearly defined before 1620 or so, apparently. Alas, spelling was not frozen til 1780 or so (Johnson), so no help there. And that is usually the problem, not grammar. Student7 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

American spelling used to be much more similar to British, and was partially changed in the 19th and early 20th centuries in a deliberate effort to make it more logical: see American and British English spelling differences#Historical origins and Simplified Spelling Board. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely it should be "cows' milk" because it is the milk from cows, plural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.92.237 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. Of course you'd be right if it was "the milk from cows" – but isn't it "milk from the cow"? I think for all of them we are thinking of singular milk-givers – if not, wouldn't the formation without the possessive also be plural? Milk from the Holstein, "Holstein milk", from the giraffe, "giraffe milk", from the cow, either "cow milk" or "cow's milk". Richard New Forest (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Breast milk

Why is there a picture of breast milk? Although labelled just "Milk", I believe the article to concentrate on cow's milk, so what's the need in the picture? Maybe it should go in Breast Milk. 87.102.126.12 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about milk in general, which is of course produced by all female mammals, including humans. It's therefore quite right that a variety of milk types is shown, and human milk is after all something with which most readers have a connection. Cow's milk forms a large part of the article not because it's the only subject, but because a large proportion of farmed milk is produced from cattle. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Another diabetes study

Someone added a lengthy blurb on a Harvard study suggesting milk could prevent Diabetes II. This did not seem connected to the other studies, thought there was a dead link in the paragraph above that could be helped out by this info. It seems to be one study only with its own peculiar results, not directly confirmed by other researchers. Seems to be a lot of that here. Anyway, it seemed WP:UNDUE since not confirmed generally by the scientific community, and possibly WP:SPAM for the particular report since there were a bunch of other additions to various articles performed in a less than npov manner. The report may be valid, but it probably doesn't deserve more than one or two sentences. The other studies telling how wonderful (or bad) milk is, probably need to be deleted if unsupported by research after (say) five years. There are pov lobbies out there on both sides. Student7 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Student7, while I certainly do appreciate your viewpoint and do agree wholeheartedly that we must watch for pov lobbies, I feel that this study is important for this article. This was a large, long-term study and the five-times-over reduction in diabetes was remarkable. I would need to read the paper again, but I believe that the study was looking for cardiovascular effects and the diabetes connection just happened to stand out. I have seen it suggested on some talk pages that we need to dumb information down since readers are unable to make up their own minds about information presented. However, I tend to feel that we cheat the many intelligent wikipedia readers when we go too far with that. Wikipedia is much more than the few words we write here, most of the information is in the links provided. I read the references, and I feel that it is fair to assume that other intelligent readers do as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Milk is translucent?

Seems mostly opaque to me, at least in its natural form. Skim milk is more translucent. Maybe we should just say it's a white fluid. ScienceApe (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Gandydancer (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 111.92.82.62, 10 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Colombia sells milk in 1 liter plastic bags

111.92.82.62 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Myth about regulation of lactase expression

"The enzyme needed to digest lactose, lactase, reaches its highest levels in the small intestines after birth and then begins a slow decline unless milk is consumed regularly." The latter statement (the prevention of the decline in lactase expression by means of milk consumption) has been never verified and the book given as reference is unreliable. The book is neither a scientific article nor a textbook, simply a popular book (McGee, Harold (2004) [1984]. "Milk and Dairy Products". On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen (2nd ed.). New York: Scribner. pp. 7–67. ISBN 978-0684800011). Eyesighter (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The price of tea in china

there is a section of this article that talks about a colorado school getting rid of flavored milk and instead installing a dispenser to keep the milk colder. what does colder milk have to do with flavored milk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.171.104 (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian Yakult?

I thought Yakult was sold internationally? In any case, isn't it made by a Japanese company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.168 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Terrible Drawing

One of the illustrations in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuvola_milk_carton.svg) is amateurish and doesn't contribute significantly to understanding the article. It's also misleading, as the image shows a half-gallon carton of milk while its caption states that such cartons are common in U.S. schools. I've never seen children knocking back half-gallons during lunchtime. - 67.202.81.221 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. I agree completely. The caption was incorrect and the drawing superfluous. I deleted the image, as it did not pertain to the section it appeared in and doesn't seem useful to add anything significant to any other area of the article either. duff 18:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.203.126.221, 9 July 2011

Could we remove the word 'adversely' from the last sentence in the Processing->Pasteurization section? The necessary information is conveyed without it, and it seems POV to me.

90.203.126.221 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Deli nk (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing UK patterns

This bit strikes me as odd:

The main reasons for the decline of UK home deliveries by milkmen are household refrigerators (which lessen the need for daily milk deliveries) and private car usage (which has increased supermarket shopping). In 1996, more than 2.5 billion liters of milk were still being delivered by milkmen, but by 2006 only 637 million liters (13% of milk consumed) was delivered by some 9,500 milkmen.

But both car and fridge ownership have been widespread for a darnsight more than the last 15 years. Are they really the reasons for milk rounds drying up?

I don't have refs to hand but surely increased aggressive selling practices by supermarkets have made the alternative more competitive? Add in more people living alone or everyone in a home working and the payment system became more awkward. I also recall a mess in the 1990s when some dairies switched their business practices to make milkmen franchisees on their individual rounds and thus unprofitable rounds were no longer subsidised and instead abandoned. This probably contributed to a cycle whereby people who didn't have the option of deliveries at their old address took the habit with them when moving and so further diminished the profitably of the round at their new address. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

East Meets West

"A glass of pasteurized cow milk, consumption of which is prevalent in Western countries"

May kindly be changed to:

"A glass of pasteurized cow milk"

I assure you that we in the eastern countries also do drink Pasteurized Cow Milk :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.13.202 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

made the change Mirboj (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it a protected page?

I fail to understand why this article is protected? Is this a biography of a living person? --the Dude or "El Duderino", if you are not into all that brevity thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.80.138 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Packaging

Norway sells milk in cartons ranging from 0,3 liter to 1 liter and recently 1,5 and 1,75 liter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.114.150 (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

UK milk deliveries

I agree with the contributor who pointed out that the decline of door delivery of milk in the UK has far more to do with supermarket pricing (and accusations of loss leading in this market) than with cars or fridges. Milk delivery isnt necesarily on a complete decline - see www.milkandmore.co.uk for example - I can now 'control' the delivery of milk to the doorstep via the internet and have a range of other perishable goods delivered. Balbip01 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This was everywhere, and not just in the UK, a multi-step process. The first was the distribution of milk that would "keep" for more than a day or two, the second, the acquisition by the consumer of vehicles to drive to obtain better prices/more choices, and last, chronologically, the construction of much larger stores (supermarkets) to replace local markets, serving many more people and offering lower markup. All this took place roughly between 1920 and 1970 or so. Not all that quick. Once suburbs started multiplying and flight from the city by the middle class started post WW II, the structure moved inexorably toward this end. Student7 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The UK section refers to a much more recent shift in the figures:

Since the late 1990s, milk-buying patterns have changed drastically in the UK. The classic milkman, who travels his local milk round (route) using a milk float (often battery powered) during the early hours and delivers milk in 1 pint glass bottles with aluminium foil tops directly to households, has almost disappeared. The main reasons for the decline of UK home deliveries by milkmen are household refrigerators (which lessen the need for daily milk deliveries) and private car usage (which has increased supermarket shopping). In 1996, more than 2.5 billion liters of milk were still being delivered by milkmen, but by 2006 only 637 million liters (13% of milk consumed) was delivered by some 9,500 milkmen.[104] By 2010, the estimated number of milkmen had dropped to 6,000.[105] Assuming that delivery per milkman is the same as it was in 2006, this means milkmen deliveries now only account for 6–7% of all milk consumed by UK households (6.7 billion liters in 2008/2009).[106]

If the years are accurate then this has little to do with urbanisation patterns, which in any case differ from country to country. The milkman was a very common feature of life in British suburbs and small towns even into the early 1990s. That's possibly a cultural factor of habit, but I suspect it's also economic, with the key factor in this period for the UK being the market deregulation of 1994 - see this House of Commons enquiry. At a guess this meant that supermarkets were now able to adopt aggressive practices to force wholesale prices down and offer cheap milk, whereas before the milkman had not faced much competition. Additionally many suppliers adopt franchise systems and suddenly many a milk round disappeared because it couldn't sustain itself without the wider subsidy. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Typo in "Sources Of Milk" section

The first sentence should read "dominates the commercial scene." instead of "dominates the commercial scence.". 178.250.213.149 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you Gioto (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested edit of section on bovine growth hormone supplementation (under "Controversy")

This section cites non-scholarly sources when discussing material of a scientific nature, and thus potentially provides misleading information. I would suggest limiting the first paragraph to the first two sentences, removing the entire discussion of IGF-1 unless more credible sources can be found (and these are hard to come by on this subject). Erh2103 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I deleted it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - remove false statement about guinea pig milk

In the Nutrition and health section, can someone please remove the incorrect information about guinea pig milk? It doesn'd have a fat content of 46%; there's nothing remarkable about guinea pig milk in that respect. There are a lot of scientific studies for which some poor soul had to milk guinea pigs in order to find out it has fairly average fat content, like this one

Stairvole (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence

The first sentence may need to be re-written, as milk does not necessarily come from animal sources - there are plant sources, such as soya milk or coconut milk. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we can define (limit) the article anyway we like. Rather than have hundreds of substitutes discussed in an article that is basically about mammalian milk (which others are trying to imitate), it would seem reasonable to place these other items in other (another) article, like "milk substitutes." Speaking of "soy milk" would make no sense, if mammalian milk didn't exist as a basis. And most people drink mammalian milk, not substitutes. In here, I think the distraction on non-mammalian milk would be WP:UNDUE. In another article (which can be "seen also" from here), fine. Student7 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong interwiki link

The interwiki link to Malagasy Wikipedia should be [[mg:Ronono]] instead the current [[mg:乳]]. I cannot change it because the page is protected. Regards. --95.20.71.46 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Vital article about how cow milk is linked to cancer and about the american 2012 farm bill

This study is from Harvard university www.naturalnews.com/035081_pasteurized_milk_cancer_dairy.html

I would have added it myself, but since wikipedia has turned into a editorial dictatorship i'm leaving it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 08:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That does not appear to be a WP:Reliable source. Rmhermen (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The material suggests that cancer can be caused by drinking milk from "pregnant cows." A problem - lactating cows can be defined as "cows who have given birth." Cows who are pregnant do not normally lactate. At all. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias

In the introduction of the article is says: "Milk derived from cattle species is an important food." That can be debated and is very biased. Much of the rest of this article also has a pro-animal milk consumption bias. I would like to request that statement to be reworded or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankster200277 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think that any food produced from an animal deliberately domesticated 10,000 years ago would usually qualify as "important." That would include eggs, pork, poultry, lamb, geese, beef,...and milk. It's okay to disagree with it and document lactaid intolerance or whatever, but "important"? I don't think that can be successfully debated. Quantity consumed has to be taken into consideration. I know that chicken and pork are right on up there. Not sure just how high milk still is. I know dairy states in the US produce more milk than they ever have in history. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Article needed: Milk packaging

There are several articles on milk packaging (e.g., square milk jug and milk bottle), and the "packaging" section here is long and rambling. Plus, milk jug redirects to milk which isn't great. Milk packaging needs its own page. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammar is bad

I assume this article was written by non-native english speakers. Could someone fix the grammar errors and remove the silly statements. 68.228.244.85 (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits to lead - August 2012

User Eptified edits to the lead on August 1 2012 are difficult to understand. He or she removed a paragraph that had plentiful citations, claiming it was 'uncited material.' I checked and verified that the content is supported. Assuming good faith, I ask the user to clarify why the whole para was deleted, or identify specific content that is in dispute? - so we can work to improve it.

Please note that WP:VNT guidelines state: Wiki contributors may not remove sources' views from wiki articles simply because they disagree with them. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, after going over the material again, I see the problem here. My apologies, ApostleVonColorado. The error I made was due to the fact that the material makes a series of claims and then lists a supporting footnote to a citation that doesn't support or reference any of the claims at all (citation number 4) and then it lists another series of facts and then there is another citation which actually supports the former claims as well. I think the way this paragraph has been cited is confusing and not ideal.

However I think that the main problem with the lede section of this article is that it contains irrelevant information about dairy products, not milk, which are not the subject of the article. Dairy products are described in the Dairy product article. Eptified (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I re-arranged the text. Milk is the essential aspect of dairy farming. An encyclopedia covers many aspects of one subject/topic; therefore, an encyclopedic article on milk will refer to dairy some place or the other. Ignoring or avoiding this essential aspect will weaken the article.

The lead, per WP:LEAD, must summarize key aspects of the main article. The main article refers to the term dairy over 60 times. Including the term in lead is therefore fine. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the milk article should mention and discuss dairy products, however I don't think it is a good idea to discuss facts about dairy products in the lede instead of facts about milk. For example, instead of listing statistics about how many people consume dairy products it would make more sense to list how many people consume milk. And then the facts about dairy products can be discussed in a section devoted to them instead of the lede of the article so that readers may drill down into that particular aspect of milk if they wish to. After all, given any consumable good there are usually many other products that are produced from them. The article about rice should mainly contain information about rice, not risotto, even though risotto requires rice to be produced. If someone reading this article wants to know about dairy products then they can just go to the Dairy product article. Eptified (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead reads: 6 billion consume milk and milk products. It doesn't read: x billion consume dairy products. Past wiki contributors have done what you are suggesting, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

More information to be added to Milk

http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/mar/dairy.htm

Quite a lot of info on there not found on the Milk page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.144.154 (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That page wouldn't pass the reliable sources criteria. Rmhermen (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition data error!

Carbohydrates=sugars=lactose ; as far as milk is concerned. Then why are they listed saperately. Can someone correct it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.33.208 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Equality of information

This article fails to really show both sides of the milk controversy. It trivialises the growing contention, amongst health professionals, that milk is actually not good for the body. It also fails to note the bias in many articles claiming that milk is good for you- often funded by companies looking to make a buck (e.g. the dairy industry). Another failing of this article is the ethical section. It is very short, trivialises the issues and does not discuss some of the issues in full - e.g. the rape of cows every 12-16 months.

I have completed a Bachelor of Science in Nutrition Therapy and have done research into this topic and I feel that more facts should be explored in this page. I will admit that I am vegan, but this just a result of the information that I have looked into and not something that makes the facts biased.

Just very FEW of the many sources of relevant information for this article can be found here:

http://www.pcrm.org/health/health-topics/calcium-and-strong-bones http://www.vegetarianvictoria.org.au/cms/infosheets/2veggoveganfaqs.pdf http://www.notmilk.com/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/248912-foods-that-leach-calcium/ http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/dairy-calcium-myth.php

I hope that this is taken seriously, as many people come to Wikipedia for information. This is especially relevant to parents and young children. I would hate for children to grow up without all the information relevant to their health and that of their children down the line.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryblossomcomputer (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any sources that would be considered adequate per WP standards? Gandydancer (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This information does not clarify that vegan sources of milk are available

This article could make it a lot clearer that there are some sources of milk which would be accessible to practitioners of veganism. When it talks about sources of milk, it tends to mention animal sources, but it does not clarify that some milk sources are from plants, such as rice milk or soya milk. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it makes the opposite clear - that milk comes from mammals. There are substitutes for everything I suppose, but doesn't mean it should be in the article. Student7 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Error to chart under Types of Consumption

The table listed under the heading Types of Consumption and under the sub-title Food product for Humans has an incorrect title. The title of the table currently reads Top ten per capita cow's milk and cow's milk products consumers in 2006, however, the source of that data has entitled the table Per Capita Consumption of Milk and Milk Products in Various Countries. This is significant because the way the title reads right now implies that Canada is among the top ten countries in terms of per capita milk consumption. However, in actuality, it is just amoung the top ten in the list that Professor Doug Goff has provided on his website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DairyQueen1989 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Revised, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Milk in Sweden

I have never ever seen milk in a glass bottle in modern Sweden, as stated in the article. We did have them up to perhaps the 1960s, but that is now long ago ... Please change that in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.183.154 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2013

mjölk det är gött det ! av issabell THA GS 217.140.112.221 (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Not an edit request. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.dairyco.org.uk/talking-to-schools-consumers/providing-school-milk/the-history-of-milk/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Dolphin milk source

The claim that dolphins are a milk source used by humans has norefernce. Shouldn't it need one? If no one defends that claim, I think dolphins should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.172.101 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Milk to solve malnutrition in the world ? 75% on the globe are Lactose Intolerant !

In the Milk articles there is the claim to solving malnutrition with milk. But yet statistics show that Lactose Intolerance is 75% worldwide ( 97-100% of African Blacks, 90-100% of Asians, 70-75% of North American Blacks, 70-80% of Mexicans, 60-90% of Mediterraneans, 60-80% of Jewish descent ... etc )

To make milk you need to waste water on crops to feed the cows, you need to waste money on antibiotics to keep them healthy ... how is this a solution to world hunger ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos42ze (talk • contribs) 21:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation Required - Claim that Light Affects Taste

The claim that "Ultraviolet (UV) light from fluorescent lighting can alter the flavor of milk" needs to be backed up with a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinhermann (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency between table and text

In the Production Worldwide section, the table shows that the US produces the most amount of milk, while the text right beside it says that India does. 50.155.206.22 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The text says "milk" while the table says "cow milk". There are many water buffalo in India. Is that the difference? Rmhermen (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Milk production and consumption graphic incorrect

In the "Production worldwide" section there is a graphic captioned "Milk production and consumption." In this graphic the United States is shown as being a surplus country (red), with Canada being a country with balanced production (green). In the graphic Alaska is indicated with the same colour as the rest of Canada, which is incorrect since Alaska is a US state.

Alaska should match the colour of the continental United States (red), currently it matches the colour of Canada (green). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.128.143 (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Misspelling/Grammar

In the "Physical and chemical properties of milk" section, the word "principle" is used instead of "principal". 76.15.230.99 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Under "Food Product for Humans" section, the sentence "...mutation spread in human populations in Europe that enabling the production of lactase in adulthood" should read "...mutation spread in human populations in Europe that enabled the production of lactase in adulthood" 174.28.133.243 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Linked in "persistence" article which is interesting in itself, directly due to this suggestion. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Inhumane treatment of cows

Can someone please change "inhumane" into "cruel". The notion of treating cows "as humans" is somewhat unintendedly funny. --2003:51:AF06:3001:2053:7489:9300:ED66 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Unit consistency

In the packaging section, the units are all different. Sometimes the switch is made to mL when the volume goes below 1L, and sometimes it's written as a decimal in litres. It doesn't look very nice and should be fixed, if only for aesthetic reasons. -Greg

No, they should be labelled whatever they are referred to in everyday speech. Rmhermen (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Recommended consumption

This sentence is ambiguous: The U.S. federal government document Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010[76] recommends consumption of 3 glasses of fat-free or low-fat milk for adults and children 9 and older (less for younger children).

I tried to change it but the article is semi-protected for whatever reason - here is a more clear version (I checked the source for this)

The U.S. federal government document Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010[76] recommends consumption of 3 glasses per day of fat-free or low-fat milk for adults and children 9 and older (less for younger children).

Cheers to anyone that wants to change it. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Milk processing graph inaccuracy

The milk processing graph (English version, the original German is different in that point) states that all cheese is made from whey. This is very likely some error, as it is in fact casein that is the principal compound of cheese (Ricotta, the whey cheese, is the exception). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.157.74 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Attribution of Yakult products

An image of a probiotic drink towards the bottom of the Varieties and Products section refers to Yakult as "Brazilian". The text on the bottle is Portuguese, suggesting that it was packaged for distribution in Brazil, but Yakult is an international brand, originating, patented first, and primarily produced in Japan. Removing "Brazilian" and just leaving it as "Yakult is a probiotic milk-like product..." would be more accurate and remain clear; the name is already a link to a page about the brand. 66.253.206.27 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've done better and left the branding and nationality off.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)