![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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
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)
Pastorised milk doesn't turn sour. It turns rancid. A sour milk CAN be eaten. A rancid one absolutely not.
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)
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
As the history comment asks, monotremes are indeed mammals. See Platypus for verification. Shane King 12:40, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
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
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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've heard it's possible to milk a snake. Is this true? Should this be included in the article?
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. Prome theus -X303- 00:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
come from Molech? He was also called mlk, right? -- Vehgah 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I added the "History of Cow Milk" and "Animal Milk and vegetarianism" sections. Anonymous _anonymous Have a Nice Day 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Removed this paragraph added by anonymous contributor user:155.136.80.2
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)
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:
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)
Non credible sources? References to these statements are as follows:
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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.
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 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].
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 [12] [13]
Han-Kwang 18:05, 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)
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)
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)
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)
In the United States, I would say quite the opposite. I would need to find a citation for this though.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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. mechamind 9 0 02:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{ edit semi-protected}}
Colombia sells milk in 1 liter plastic bags
111.92.82.62 (
talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This study is from Harvard university www.naturalnews.com/035081_pasteurized_milk_cancer_dairy.html unreliable fringe source?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
mjölk det är gött det ! av issabell THA GS 217.140.112.221 ( talk) 11:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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
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)
Pastorised milk doesn't turn sour. It turns rancid. A sour milk CAN be eaten. A rancid one absolutely not.
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)
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
As the history comment asks, monotremes are indeed mammals. See Platypus for verification. Shane King 12:40, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
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
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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've heard it's possible to milk a snake. Is this true? Should this be included in the article?
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. Prome theus -X303- 00:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
come from Molech? He was also called mlk, right? -- Vehgah 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I added the "History of Cow Milk" and "Animal Milk and vegetarianism" sections. Anonymous _anonymous Have a Nice Day 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Removed this paragraph added by anonymous contributor user:155.136.80.2
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)
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:
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)
Non credible sources? References to these statements are as follows:
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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.
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 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].
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 [12] [13]
Han-Kwang 18:05, 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)
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)
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)
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)
In the United States, I would say quite the opposite. I would need to find a citation for this though.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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. mechamind 9 0 02:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{ edit semi-protected}}
Colombia sells milk in 1 liter plastic bags
111.92.82.62 (
talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This study is from Harvard university www.naturalnews.com/035081_pasteurized_milk_cancer_dairy.html unreliable fringe source?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
mjölk det är gött det ! av issabell THA GS 217.140.112.221 ( talk) 11:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)