Talk:Milk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Treatment of animals

Who thinks the article should go into more detail regarding the treatment of animals during milking? 72.43.143.67 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Animals from which milk is extracted from are generally made comfortable, it is dangerous to try to milk an anxious cow and I believe there is a link between milk quality and animal stress levels. Unless there is valid evidence of abuse involved in milking, then I would say no. 67.76.181.7 19:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Carbohydrate content

Dr. Atkins says that skim milk has a higher carbohydrate content than other milks. If this is true, it should be mentioned, along with the factors explaining why it is true. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected Page template

Uhhh... I hope it's okay... I noticed the page was protected, but whoever protected it neglected to put in the template so I did. I hope that's allowed... -Pastel_kitten

Health risk from homogenized milk?

Does anyone know anything about this? To quote:

The natural homogenization of goat milk is, from a human health standpoint, much better than the mechanically homogenized cow milk product. It appears that when fat globules are forcibly broken up by mechanical means, it allows an enzyme associated with milk fat, known as xanthine oxidase, to become free and penetrate the intestinal wall. Once xanthine oxidase gets through the intestinal wall and into the bloodstream, it is capable of creating scar damage to the heart and arteries, which in turn may stimulate the body to release cholesterol into the blood in an attempt to lay a protective fatty material on the scarred areas. This can lead to arteriosclerosis. It should be noted that this effect is not a problem with natural (unhomogenized) cow milk. In unhomogenized milk this enzyme is normally excreted from the body without much absorption. --excerpted from “Goat Milk versus Cow Milk,” by G. F. W. Haenlein and R. Caccese, University of Delaware, Newark, in the Extension Goat Handbook, fact sheet E-1, 1984.

This seems like a pretty serious allegation, considering that almost all milk which is sold nowadays is homogenized. Perhaps something should be mentioned in the article? Or is this some kind of myth? If it's a myth, why does it seem to come from a reputable source? (unless that website is lying about the exact quote, of course) Esn 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A-HA! So THAT'S what makes homogenized milk unhealthy, and how it can scar the artery walls and allow fats to stick to them! That is no myth, my friend; Kevin Trudeau was right all along! --Luigifan 11:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that xanthine oxidase as with most enzymes would likely be broken down before it reaches the bloodstream, this seems rather unlikely. A reference from something better then a 1984 goat handbook would be needed for such a claim Nil Einne 02:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

to put it the other way round: even most small molecules can not cross the intestinal wall. Xanthine oxidase however is a pretty huge molecule. So even if by whatever means it gets through the stomach intact, it can't do harm in your blood since it will never arrive there. And the fat globules in milk will be broken down anyway - either by homogenizing or in your stomach. --Echosmoke 22:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How Milk is stored?

Does it truly matter the type of container milk is stored in? Such as American's use of a clear jug or a carton? Does this affect the milk in any way, shape or form? i.e. I have heard that milk doesn't last as long in clear jugs when compared to a carton. --Griffpad 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultraviolet waves affect milk quality, so store it in something opaque or that filters ultraviolet wavelengths. It should be kept refrigerated. If the refrigerator is shared or public, containers should be marked by owner. Containers of milk should be marked as such. The container must seal shut, rather than be left open like a bowl, and should have no holes. Containers featuring images of missing children should be avoided because they disturb children and there are already enough children and in obedience to the law of the survival of the fittest. Children are not allowed to boil in their mother's milk. Don't store milk on someone's property without asking their permission, or they have the right to shoot you. The container should be empty, cleaned and rinsed, especially if previously having stored old milk or anything harmful. Storing bottles of milk near bottles of nitroglycerin may cause them to spoil. Milk should not be allowed to flow freely in zero gravity. Milk should not be used as a replacement for water in plumbing. Milk is not flammable. Milk is conductive. Erudecorp ? * 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Milk leaches calcium from your bones?

There's this idea circulating that milk (along with other animal protein) actually leaches calcium from your bones. I'm naturally skeptical since I see the claims mainly on anti-milk websites, vegan websites and web forums, who can be considered biased or unreliable. Still, I'd like to be able to see the rumour either proven or debunked, with reputable sources. Any idea? --Jonathan Drain 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[3]

• Here is one good study that gives evidence to the contrary: [4]. I am sure there are many others, but this is just one I found with a quick search. JeffreyN 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Also, these issues are mentioned somewhat by another poster on this talk page (Talk:Milk#Anti-milk POV). For my part, I did a little more researching. The evidence appears to show that in the elderly, and possibly in adults, drinking milk may not prevent osteoporosis as previously thought. In fact, milk may cause the excretion of some calcium and increased risk of fractures later in life. I would personally note, however, a couple things: this is a new area of study and more is being done to really understand the issue. Also note that some studies show supplemental calcium (which does not necessarily come with animal proteins) taken in later life also does little or nothing to improve bone health. BUT, and this is a big but, none of these studies show that drinking milk as a younger person is bad or provides no health benefits. In fact, all the studies I found show that milk drank by children and younger people helps improve bone health later in life and protects against fractures. Building health, thick bones early in life is very important and provides health benefits years down the road. The message from all this: take everything, even new research, with a grain of salt!
• That, as far as I can tell, is my understanding of the issues. JeffreyN 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The first google hit on "milk leaches calcium" cites anti-milk website notmilk.com. It argues that methionine in milk causes sulphur release leading to calcium loss, but his scientific quotes refer only to dietary protein in general and not methionine. Even so, the statistics he give suggest that milk contains only 83mg-100mg methionine per 100g, with tofu close at 74mg and some meats at 500mg to 800mg. If it is indeed methionine responsible for calcium leaching, it's meat we should be worrying about, not meat. It's also commonly cited that countries which consume the most milk have the highest rates of osteoporosis; surely milk consumption is in part a genetic factor of the Caucasian's relatively low rate of lactose intolerance, and genetics are an equally likely explanation? I'm also told that New Zealand has low rates of osteoporosis even though they have the highest rate of milk consumption. --Jonathan Drain 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[5]
    • Well one of the issues is obviously that it's easily possible milk will be consumed in significantly greater quantities. For example, 300g of milk/day seems hardly unusual but 300g of meat/day would be a lot for many people. Of course, with the figures you've given the difference in quantities is unlikely to be enough to make milk a greater concern. Besides that, Methionine is an essential AA Nil Einne 02:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cancer

A question and request for clarification: In a couple of places in the article reduced fat milk is mentioned in the context of reducing the risk of disease. "Low-fat and non-fat forms of milk may mitigate this risk" "Studies show possible links between low-fat milk consumption and reduced risk of arterial hypertension, coronary heart disease,colorectal cancer and obesity. Overweight individuals who drink milk may benefit from decreased risk of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.[8]"

Would it be appropriate to state more clearly the action that is being stated to reduce the risk? Is it switching to reduced fat milk from a vegan diet, a whole milk diet, a non-milk diet, or what? I would appreciate the clarification. Agape bright 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation does not support statement

Under the 'other issues' part of this article, Casein is remarked to be "suspected" to be a carcinogen. The source cited is [6], this website: http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/barnard_food_seduction.htm

Nowhere on this site is cancer or casein as a carciniogen mentioned 198.151.13.10 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Milk and Mucus

This article mentions a "common misconception": "A recent study failed to demonstrate a correlation between milk consumption and production of mucus by respiratory mucosa in healthy adults." and refers to "Journal of the American College of Nutrition: Milk Consumption Does Not Lead to Mucus Production or Occurrence of Asthma." This article does say anything suggesting its title. The article says: "According to Australian studies, subjects perceived some parameters of mucus production to change after consumption of milk and soy-based beverages, but these effects were not specific to cows’ milk because the soy-based milk drink with similar sensory characteristics produced the same changes." This sentence only says that milk and soymilk induce equal amounts of mucus, not that milk induces no mucus. This is obviously not what the title, or the common misconceptions section says. Clearly the statement in this Wikipedia article came from a flawed title, and not from an actual study. --Kainino 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Notmilk.com - Is it propaganda or true?

Could someone with scientific knowledge about milk and the website www.notmilk.com, create an article about the website Notmilk.com? I cannot tell if it is propaganda, or if it contains information about true health risks the consumption of milk poses. I think a lot of people want to know what the deal is with this website. And if an objective, neutral article would be created on wikipedia about the site, it would probably get ranked high on search engines, so people could make an objective (and scientifically supported) judgment on if to consume diary - and not a judgment based on potential propaganda.

Any website that makes claims that are highly contrary to conventional perspectives, speak about government conspiracies to harm or control the public, and claim to be the only one or one of a few people possessing knowledge of "the truth" is automatically suspect. This is not to say it should be automatically dismissed, but most people running these sites are either shameless hucksters trying to make a buck (e.g. Kevin Trudeau), or pseudo-science weirdos that mean well but generally have no idea about what they're talking about, and dismiss any use of logical or scientific analysis. He appears to fall into the latter catagory. A quick look over this site shows he has a beef with pretty much everything to do with milk, and most of his citations are either taken out of context or rubbish. The writing is both second rate and designed to inflame emotions, not at all objective. In addition, the guy George Plimpton sounds like Ron Hubbard (e.g. apparently a pro at everything). Go through it thoroughly yourself with a critical perspective. If there seems to be some points with valid info, run it through here. Halogenated (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Liquid not Fluid

To say milk is a fluid is adds unnecessary ambiguity to the description. A fluid can be either a liquid or a gas. Milk, as we think of it, is clearly a liquid. I can’t see any reasons why milk should be described as a fluid when it can be more accurately described as a liquid. I think it should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.84.73 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Milk is not technically a liquid, it is an Emulsion, refer to the Physical and Chemical Structure of Milk. It is unnecessarily ambiguous to have to two different physical descriptions in the same article.

Westralian 06:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• An emulsion is not a state of matter, but rather a mix of them. Milk is an emulsion of skim-milk and cream, both of which are liquids, so that qualifies milk as a liquid. Also, it is a liquid in the defined sense that it always has almost exactly the same volume at the same temperature and different pressures: "Liquid particles (normally molecules or clusters of molecules) are free to move within the liquid volume, but their mutual attraction limits the ability of particles to leave the volume. The volume of a quantity of liquid is fixed by its temperature and pressure." (Liquid). --Kainino 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cited Sources

There are many places in this article using an unusual method of citing sources, such as "(McGee 12)" being stuck right in the middle of sentences, which I think typical APA formatting, but it's not usually used in Wikipedia. I think this should be changed, what do you guys think? Useight 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Variant products

I was surprised to see no mention of variant products produced from milk, e.g., yoghurt, kefir milk, and cultured milk. Strangely, there is no article about cultured milk in the English Wikipedia at all, it's common in Norway ("kulturmjølk") and Sweden ("fil"). I did wikify dairy products, but a separate paragraph seems appropriate to make it findable at all. Kjetilho 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is buttermilk (more specifically cultured buttermilk) the same as cultured milk? The milk article does have a link to it in an odd place (i.e., mentioned with lactose intolerance). No one I knew who drank buttermilk drank it because of lactose intolerance. --VMS Mosaic 00:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. As far as I can tell, buttermilk is what we call "myse" in Norwegian, an almost clear liquid. On the other hand, my Webster says that a secondary meaning of buttermilk is cultured milk made by adding "organisms" to *sweet* milk. Perhaps the buttermilk article could/should be made clearer? Kjetilho 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The buttermilk article should probably be changed to make it clear that it is 'US' supermarkets in which buttermilk means "cultured buttermilk". --VMS Mosaic 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I now see that Norwegian "myse" is whey. I wonder what "traditional" buttermilk is like then. Anyway, a bit of a detour from my original point. Kjetilho 11:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I separated the cultured milks into 2 sentences, reflecting that the primary use for cultured buttermilk is in cooking as a substitute for the generally unavailable soured milk of old. Because of the availability of other less acid cultured milks, drinking buttermilk due to lactose intolerance has become rare, and was never widespread. jchristopher 05:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fat in cow milk

Several numbers were thrown: 3.4, 3.9, 3.25. I think this article should cite one reliable source... 74.120.113.47 00:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends somewhat on the breed of cow. Rmhermen 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

it also depends on how well they are fed. Natural fat can be at least up to 4.0 % (Natural here meaning bred to death ;) ) and the lower numbers like 3.8, 3.5 till 0% are standardized for sale. --Echosmoke 23:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fungicide

For several years now, milk has been used as an alternative fungicide on gardens and vineyards; rather than traditional chemical fungicides. The potassium phosphate and salts in the milk are absorbed by the plant, which not only helps the plant fight of fungi and other diseases by boosting its immune system, but it also acts as a foilage fertilizer, strengthening the leaves. I think this should be added somewhere in the article. A simple Google search for milk + fungicide will yield many articles about this discovery. 70.118.90.144 12:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Milk ALL Milk

I've noticed for about ten years or more that when the residual milk in a glass dries, it dries as a film on the bottom of the glass. I don't remember this happening many years ago.

I was told that the reason for this is that powdered milk solids are added to milk sometime during its processing before it gets to the market. In otherwords, "MILK," as purchased in a bottle or carton, has added protein added to it. Does this account, possibly along with other additives, what we are now seeing at the bottom of our glasses?

I know that Pasteurization removes some vitamin content (C) but why should protein have to be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRKaramelkorn (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably low fat milk. The butterfat would have prevented this 10 years ago before the no fat fad. The residue would have been buttery whereas now there is only crystalline and powdery material left when the water evaporates. Tom 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's even more milk than back then if it's low fat milk. Erudecorp ? * 02:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pls add the section of Milk Safety to the article

Outbreaks of milk related diseases are not uncommon

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/milksafe/milksa5.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.22 (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

“ > The CDC reports that frmo 1998 to present there were 39 outbreaks in which unpasteurized milk or cheese made from unpasteurized milk were implicated.

> These outbreaks occured in 22 states and two of them were multi-state outbreaks. An estimated 831 illnesses, 66 hospitalizations and 1 death were associated with these outbreaks.

> Not all outbreaks are recognized.

> Even when they are, not all are reported to CDC.

> Virtually impossible to capture all of the incidents of individual illness which might occur

”

That's worth noting. Erudecorp ? * 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pasteurization

Pasteurization is used to kill off harmful organisms. The process does not discriminate against other organisms, but the intent of the process is to kill only the harmful ones, and therefore the wording that it is used as such is appropriate. Halogenated (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

milk and heart disease

The line indicating that "numerous sources" state that saturated fats and cholesterol contribute to artherosclerosis and coronary heart disease is uncited and not factually correct. Not only does the NIH not state this, but I can't find a single journal article that does either. In addition, even if this is true, there is nothing linking the levels in milk to these conditions. Therefore I removed this line. I can however find several studies that show no link between sat. fat consumption and arterosclerosis. [[6]], [[7]], and [[8]] Food for thought. Halogenated (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

inconsistency between different pages

The pages; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_farming#Dairy_farming_in_the_world and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk#Types_of_consumption have inconsistent milk production facts, one page should be chosen as correct and the other page should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.18.243 (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy, Industry/Media, Modern Production

The issue of drinking milk is clearly a question of philosophy, as in animal rights and speciesism. There perhaps needs to be a section dedicated strictly to the philosophy, that will discuss these topics pertaining specifically to milk. Living in Canada (where many of our channels/commercials are american), I have seen many campaigns for selling milk. There are connections between cultural consumption of milk and industry marketing. The question of how involved industry is in trying to maintain/increase milk consumption needs to be addressed. Agricultural groups, beef industry groups and milk promoting groups should be mentioned here with regard to their involvement with marketing milk and their political views on the production of milk. Modern production of milk does not discuss organic/beyond-organic milk production. Organic/beyond-organic milk producers have particular views on safer and more ecologically sound methods of producing milk. Perhaps this should be a different section altogether, which should be mentioned (like organic beef). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.250.195 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Osteoporosis

I know Wikipedia strives for the highest standards in correctness and accuracy, but I hope that usefulness is important, too. And a useful source on the topic of milk should at least point to the many connections between milk consumption and osteoporosis. I live in Finland, the country with highest consumption of milk in the world. We have also a very big problem with osteoporosis and an increased number of hip fractures due to osteoporosis (refer to "Increased incidence of hip fractures. A population based-study in Finland", Eija Lönnroos et al., Bone 39 (2006) 623–627). I think it would be responsible to at least mention the possibility of a link between milk and dairy product consumption and increased risk of osteoporosis, so that people could do their own research. 91.153.152.27 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Added a bit on osteoporosis in the medical studies section. Meviin (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sol or emulsion?

In the page Colloid, it says that milk is a sol. This page states that it's an emulsion. What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.43.152 (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Low Fat Cow Milk Linked to Prostrate Cancer?

I've been hearing this for a little bit now and I'm not sure if we should add it in.

Here's one of the articles I found of it: http://news.aol.com/health/story/_a/nonfat-low-fat-milk-linked-to-cancer/20080102175409990001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.62.107 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unhomogenized milk

Is also available in Finland (as "luomu" milk products), and I'm willing to bet also in Sweden and possibly other nearby countries. --M.A. (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

they actually have inhomogenized milk in the US as well ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Article getting out of control

Perhaps this article should be broken down into two or three separate articles since there is so much controversy and directly conflicting information about milk. For example, medical benefits such as possibility of increased fertility and reduced risk of some diseases are in the nutritional benefits section. The first reference I pulled up when checking this referenced the November 2004 edition of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which a study indicated that even moderate consumption of milk led to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Perhaps controversy about milk, benefits/detriments, could be separated and linked from this article which could be an NPOV article just about milk, production, types, etc.?Bob98133 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All articles are requires to meet the NPOV criteria to qualify for wikipedia. I agree a separate article on the controvery over milk might be a good idea, but it needs to be similarily critiqued and use valid references. Simply creating a "milk sucks" article lined up with a bunch of references to questionable websites is hardly appropriate, and unfortunately what a number of presumably well-meaning but misguided individuals wish to do. There are definitely some valid articles linking milk to certain conditions including ovarian cancer and prostate inflammation, but we must bear in mind the increased risk does not necessarily imply a substantially higher overall risk. Additionally, it also depends on how well these studies have controlled for other factors, which in case studies is not generally the case. Halogenated (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's an edit war brewing on the controversy section. I just reverted this text an NPOV and unencyclopedic:

A number of advocate groups (e.g. Viva! (throught their website MilkMyths), PETA) (through their website MilkSucks) have sprung up protesting that milk presents a health threat . Whilst no study has concluded any causal health risk to normal individuals consuming moderate quantities milk, the scientific report White Lies: The health consequences of consuming cow’s milk. by Dr. Justine Butler, Professor T. Colin Campbell and Professor Jane Plant CBE (and its companion DVD ) is the first scientific reportt of its kind to raise awareness about the enormous health consequences of consuming dairy products. </bockquote> --Mdwyer (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm the above seems to be false anyway "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which a study indicated that even moderate consumption of milk led to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Perhaps controversy about milk" would seem to indicate that there have been studies that prove that moderate consumption does have a health risk to it. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well if we're trying to be NPOV you might as well get rid of ref.16 by the "National Milk Council" surely if we're removing information that comes from a source that couldn't be considered NPOV this would be one, no? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if you actually look at the references it further references 6 articles published in well-accepted peer reviewed journals including the Journal of the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine. Something most of these other sources don't do. Argue if you want about stacked odds in favour of potential nepotism and corporate agendas (I can read your mind), you might have a valid point, but they carry a lot more crediblity than websites named "milksucks" and PETA. Halogenated (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say each group has equal interest to the opposite in the sense of POV, and I don't think you can view something as any more or less POV based upon its name. You'll find if you look through "milk sucks" it is just as well referenced as the farmers website.. hmmm -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One look at the site makes it apparent how it is blatant vegan propaganda. Even if it contained good links, which according to the editorial diatribes in the news it linked to it doesn't seem to, the very tone of the site is a complete negative spin using reactionary and sensationalist techniques. There are many good arguments against mass-dairy farming for the health of the animals and the environment, but the ones for human health are generally weak, and based largely on a disdain of consumption of animal based products, a point of view definitely not shared by the bulk of the world, and with no significant evidence to claims of superior health. Yes, drinking plenty of heavy cream daily will probably make you fat and more prone to certain obesity related illnesses (e.g. heart disease and diabetes). So would eating lots of saturated fat-laden avocadoes and coconut cream daily. Arguments for health are largely based on irresponsible eating habits, which are independent on the choice of diet type (vegetarian, vegan, or omnivorous). These web sites bring no verifiable evidence on the matter to light, and come strictly from a propagandist POV. The articles on milksucks are from the news media, who are hardly well recognised for their ability to properly interpret scientific journal articles (a major complaint from most well established scientists, who often find their research greatly exaggerated for better or worse. Hammy scientists do little to help this). The national dairy council is certainly partisan, and undoubtedly full of smooth-talking lobbyists, but at least they go the length to argue with reasonable citations borne from actual studies. If you don't agree with those, and wish to challenge them, that's excellent, but do so with better evidence that meets Wikipedia's standards. Ideally, the links to the milk council and similar organisations should be represented only for non-disputed general facts, and links to the actual scientific articles themselves should be posted for more specific claims, and the material reviewed by people with the ability to properly read through the jargon. This is a lot of work, so it's understandable that people are hesitant to do so. If you or anyone can bring good evidence to light regarding health problems and milk, let's post it, that's important. In fact, we'll make an article dedicated to it that will stand up to scrutiny. I understand that given the reputation of milk and decades of lobbying by the milk industry this is made quite difficult, but let's not comprimise the position with lousy evidence and taint by well-meaning but over-zealous vegans. Halogenated (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I did a little bit of adding refs, removing weasels, copy-editing, etc. More to come later, if you disagree, help me fix it up, i'm probably a little partial towards the pro-vegan side of things. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better! Sorry about coming down so hard, this article has been a frequent target by sometimes misinformed individuals who are often not familiar with how to properly contribute. Your recent edits fit well, thanks for helping out. If you want to create another article that addresses controversies over milk in-depth (e.g. health, environment, animal welfare, etc) I would certainly do all I can to contribute constructively. Seeing as how milk is a rather large and generalised article, that might be a good idea. Cheers. Halogenated (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Halogenated: You recently reverted my edits. As I look back on them, I see that some of my sources were secondary rather than primary sources. However, I do think that a few of my edits are necessary and do not contradict that which is in the talk pages.

In the lactose intolerance section, there is a sentence that reads "The production of this enzyme declines significantly after weaning in all mammals including humans(except for most northern westerners and a few other ethnic groups, lactase decline occurs after weaning, sometime between the ages of two and five)." I'm really not sure what the parenthetical note is trying to say. First, what is a northern westerner - someone who lives in the northwest hemisphere? Is the parenthetical note supposed to be its own sentence, or is it supposed to interact with the sentence that it is in? That note is not in the main article on lactose intolerance, and it seems completely unnecessary for a brief overview of lactose intolerance in the milk article. Do you think that we need to include that note? Also, I was under the impression that references to other wikipedia articles should be done by just linking the relevant text rather than providing a footnote, so I changed the footnote referencing the anaerobic respiration wikipedia page to a wikipedia link. Do you disagree with this?

Now that I look through the talk archives, I do agree that notmilk is probably not the best source to use. I'll try to track down the primary sources that were referenced in my other articles and use those. Thanks for keeping everything clean; I'll make new talk sections for the other edits.

Meviin (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

uh-oh, what have i done?

In the nutrional detriments section there is part where the article says "the are some groups" then there is a reference. I thought i had accidently deleted the following bit, but when you goto edit it, it shows that it is still there, but nonetheless, it doesn't show on the article itself? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy - White Bloods cells

The reason I added a statement indicating that there are no studies demonstrating that white bloods cells in milk are a concern is because there isn't! Why is this controverial then? If this is to be included under the controversy section, then it should be controversial, which would indicate a concern with health. Perhaps you could add something indicating there is concern over the health of the cattle with elevated white blood cell counts, but other than the silly "ick" factor, it is not a human health concern. As it stands, this statement needs to be fleshed out or moved to a different section of the article Halogenated (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to this section. I reluctantly added a statement r.e. paratuberculosis transmission and somatic cells. I say relatantly, because the author is highly one-sided with an obvious personal bias. However because the source uses a peer-reviewed journal as it's primary source, I have included this info. I need to access the primary source to see if it has been properly used though. Not now, no time. So until then, I believe it should stand until proven otherwise, as I have only some reason to doubt the veracity of the information.

Also, changed the order in which these items are stated, because the hormone controversy leads to mastitis which is the reason for the main reason for the elevated white cell counts.

I removed the citation needed tag for the comment r.e. no studies have shown a link between the hormones and health impacts - problem is, the burden of proof is to show that a study has in fact linked these, not the other way around. Given the strong statements made about the hormone use, a caveat about this is in order. If there are no studies, and no one here as presented any, than I believe the statement should stand, either as is or with modification. Halogenated (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes

IMPORTANT note on milk: Goes great on cereal.

Controvery Section

Once again, I have revised this section ude to misinformation. I am frankly getting pretty tired of having to sort through other people's dirty laundry. I removed several statements and links due to either misrepresenatation of the information or even complete contradiction of the conclusions of the articles. It is not up to the person posting the info to draw their own conclusions. For example:

increased risk of developing atopic disease after early feeding with cows' milk based formula http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/67/8/1008

The abstract clearly states:

"Cows' milk based formula given on the maternity ward does not seem to increase the risk of developing atopic disease. "

There you have it.

ulcerative colitis http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1412480

Article states: "Absorption of allergens may be facilitated by mucosal damage, such as that of coeliac disease, with stimulation of antibody production. At the present time, however, there is little evidence to suggest that milk allergy is a factor in the aetiology of ulcerative colitis."

Therefore milk allergy may arise as a RESULT of ulcerative colitis, not the other way around!

Hirschsprung's disease–mimicking symptoms due to milk proteins http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WKP-4MHHXD1-X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=760c097c4357bff51dd6ede9bb7ef633

Article indicates:

"Results Of 26 cases, 9 were diagnosed as HD by manometric studies and 17 as CMA. Thirteen of 17 CMA cases had been fed with breast milk and 4 with formula milk.

Conclusion The proportion of CMA in the cases presenting with HD-like symptoms in the neonatal period is much higher than what we expected, and most cases of BTNIN are caused by CMA. If HD is ruled out, CMA should be considered."

This indicates that Hirschsprung's disease–mimicking symptoms are present only in infants for the study, and are due to pre-existing milk allergies, not milk proteins directly. These allergies are not necessarily brought about by cow milk consumption, as most of the infants were breast-fed.

celiac disease among the lactose intolerant http://www.celiac.com/articles/891/1/Celiac-Disease-Common-in-Patients-with-Lactose-Intolerance/Page1.html Celiac Disease Common in Patients with Lactose Intolerance]</ref> "...the researchers conclude that a full 24% of patients with a positive H(2)-lactose breath test have celiac disease which is the likely cause of their lactose intolerance, and that anyone with a positive H(2)-lactose breath test should first be screened for celiac disease before excluding milk from their diets."

No comment necessary. Halogenated (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

YES THERE IS

You wrote:"Milk allergy may arise as a RESULT of ulcerative colitis, not the other way around"

Or it may not. There is little evidence whatsoever what are the a factors in the aetiology of ulcerative colitis. I have strong suspicions that HOMOGENIZED milk is one of them.

Warrington (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen websites cite this study to argue that milk causes heart disease. They fail to mention that the study examines correlation in nations between the correlation between food production and heart disease incidence. http://www.thorne.com/media/milk_heartdisease.pdf

This study gives opposing evidence for individuals. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1731907 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugburns499 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• NEW DISCUSSION SUB-TOPIC: I can't see why "lactose intolerance" and the nutritional comparison between various animals' milks should be located under "Controversy" & not under "Nutrition & health". Does anyone know why they have been organised that way?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nutrition and Health Section

In my opinion, it is inappropriate for the subsection headings to read "nutritional benefits" and "nutritional...detriments". Many of the points enumerated aren't proved benefits or negatives but only suggestive evidence. Moreover, the health benefits section is almost all original research, as many points are not sourced. They should be either sourced or removed (note: the sources must explicitly indicate that the points are considered "health benefits" of milk). --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)  Done --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the edits, flows much better now. I do feel though there may be a place for some of the information you removed. It was not cited, however it should not be difficult to find citations for this information as it is pretty commonly known (e.g. milk contains vitamins x,y,z). Nothing too big, just a short sentence or two indicating this. I'll see if I have time to find some decent references and put something together. Otherwise good work!Halogenated (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I only removed the following text from the article:

• "and B12 is difficult to get outside of animal products or else as supplemental pills."
• "Advocacy groups such PETA and the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation have attempted to establish a link between consumption of dairy products and various illnesses and diseases."
• "Lactose intolerance, discussed below."

The rest of the text (including the info on vitamins) is still there. I just renamed the headings and moved some text to more appropriate subsections. As you indicate, the "nutritional value" of milk is common knowledge and is not disputed. The sources indicated in the "References" section probably cover these nutritional facts, so inline citations may not be necessary.

--Phenylalanine (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be my oversight, I was a little lazy about looking through the article. Cheers, and keep up the good edit work! Halogenated (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Notmilk web site

An EL to http://notmilk.com/ was recently taken down with the note that it has nothing to to with the article. I looked at this site and agree that it is an anti-milk advocacy site, however, the couple of articles I looked at appeared to be documented and referenced. I agree that it should not be an EL, but I think the site can be useful to investigate milk controversy or by leading you to references which can then be checked. I think that this site could be carefully used as a source in this article, or used to find sources, as long as it is clear that they promote a POV.Bob98133 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that careful use of the site as a source would be possible. Keith D (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

2008-04-15: Someone added this to my talk page (presumably, after removing the notmilk.com external link):

"You need to take a critical look at the source you're presenting. The site notmilk.com is incredible biased towards a POV considered not scientifically viable, or reasonable. The author(s) are presenting a highly one-sided case with little peer-reviewed references, and those that are given are highly selective. There are many reasonable arguments that persuade against the consumption of milk, but this website does not do justice to most."

I couldn't disagree more. Get past the homepage to see that most pages on notmilk.com are quotes from several to dozens of sources, including Nature and various medical journals, both general and highly specialized. I'm not sure how much more "scientific" scientific can get?

Like most people, I consider myself to be a relatively educated person, but in thirty years I'd never heard anything like what's presented on notmilk.com, and I believe that by de-including that alternative viewpoint on wikipedia --what should be THE end-all source for information-- taints the overall spirit and purpose as much as promulgates a potentially harmful disservice to humanity.

It seems to me that anyone who disincludes notmilk.com essentially argues against including, what?, 11 characters (notmilk.com) that could markedly improve someone else's life, and I find that highly unconscionable.

Let the reader decide, but at least let him be aware of all the options and information.

Obviously, notmilk.com is biased against milk, yet there are literally thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of very concise quotes on notmilk.com, identified by harmful effect or condition (osteoporosis, anemia, migraines), with every one sourced from verifiable medical or scientific journals. Here's one example (under "A for allergies"): "Dairy products may play a major role in the development of ALLERGIES, asthma, sleep difficulties, and migraine headaches." --Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 1983;19(9):806-809 Pediatrics 1989;84(4):595-603. It goes on and on.

It seems to be an astoundingly brazen, purposefully harmful omission to disinclude valid, valuable, and fully sourced information, and --truly-- it harms incredibly the credibility and spirit of good intent that wikipedia should be known for. It's *only* 11 characters: notmilk.com

Meanwhile, the controversial and limited-POV milk article quotes all over the place multi-million-dollar advertising and promotion, none of it sourced beyond the obvious vested interests and with zero scientific anything, making the entire article a total and shameful sham.

How can this issue be raised for arbitration?

Patriotick (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several combinations of 11 contiguous characters that should never be published on wikipedia. That is a silly argument. Wikipedia is not the end-all-be-all of information. If someone wants to find notmilk.com, they can simply go to any internet search engine and type in "milk". It comes up in google near the top of the second page. It is not the responsibility of wikipedia to direct people to highly biased and one-sided websites. Having looked over many of the articles on the site, they are certainly not even remotely close to peer-reviewed journal publications, but instead are editiorialised diatribes with some cherry-picked quotes from journals - this is hardly scientific. I should not have to "get past" the home page, because it sets the entire point of the page, which is anything but a NPOV. Again, I implore you to read up on what constitutes acceptable reference material on wikipedia. There is certainly a small amount of wiggle-room, but definitely NOT the page notmilk.com - this is clearly being enforced by administrators and editors alike.

It's not a matter of balancing viewpoints, but instead providing information and references that are as minimally biased as possible. The article already has a section discussing potential health issues associated with milk, and after much diligence to weed out the barrage of edits by uninformed and misguided individuals we've finally produced something reasonable in it's presentation. I've already made clear that if you or anyone wants to write an article on wikipedia that details this further, I support this, but be aware that doesn't make it a licence to add pages like notmilk.com. Regards, Halogenated (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

the calf sucking picture

is this really needed? too graphic in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomamma22 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be replaced by an HSUS image of dairy cows being lifted by forklifts for slaughter. What do you find too graphic about a nursing calf?Bob98133 (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder why it is too graphic. One of the problems with modern society is the disconnect with the 'way of nature'. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem? You really need to get out more if such a common thing offends you. You must be the kind of person who call in radio shows to complain about mothers breastfeeding their babies in public places. --208.71.184.41 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tables in the "Modern production" section

The three huge tables recently introduced in the "Modern production" section violate Wikipedia:Summary style, and should be moved or removed accordingly. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Delisting from GA status

I am boldly delisting this article per the instructions at Good Article Reassessment, as it obviously fails to continue to meet the GA criteria. In fact, if under review right now, it would be automatically failed per the quick-fail criteria. Please feel free to improve the article back to GA standards and renominate it. Thank you, VanTucky 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Zulu politics and milk

Anyone want to add this to the article?

"Boys spent their most impressionable years as young adolescents drinking twice a day from the udders of the royal cows. They were drinking of life, administered by the king. The king’s control of the flow of milk in Zulu society was the source of his power and the mechanism by which he controlled the state."

---

They Poured Themselves into the Milk: Zulu Political Philosophy Under Shaka*

---

BY Paul K Bjerk a1 a1 University of Wisconsin-Madison The Journal of African History (2006), 47: 1-19

24.130.198.167 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fat content of milk

The section about different types of milk (e.g. by fat content) seemed patchy, and was poorly referenced. I therefore move information relating to the above into a new article, and tried to organise it into some sense, together with new research.LHMike (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cottage cheese

Perhaps cottage cheese could be mentioned as being nutritionally one of the best cheeses/foods available. I also placed a picture at the cheese article. This may be integrated aswell into the milk-article. Cheers

KVDP (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If you have a reference to support this, but I doubt that a food with zero fiber is so nutritionally wonderful. Bob98133 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Under the section 'History of milk' - 'Morgan compton likes cock'

rgds 82.29.82.118 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you Morgan? --79.72.91.25 (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reorganize medical studies section

The medical studies section seems very disorganized. I will admit that I have contributed to it, but it seems like each paragraph starts at some cancer, goes to a brain disease, and then continues to wander a bit. The paragraphs on white blood cells and rBGH seem to be mostly on one topic, though the rBGH one could be broken up into several paragraphs. I'm not quite sure what the best way would be to reorganize the rest of the paragraphs. Maybe the best strategy would be to just break it up by topic and include subheadings - ie, a subheading for cancer, for autism, for allergies, etc. And rBGH should probably get its own section: the arguments are not about whether the milk itself is (un)healthy, but whether the IGF-1 has an increased presence in milk from rBGH-treated cows and the health effects of that. That might just be my own peeve, though. Meviin (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This section is definitely in need of a good housecleaning again. Every once in a while someone comes in and cleans house, then slowly things get cluttered again. There has been a long standing discussion here r.e. health effects and milk, and much of it probably goes beyond the scope of this article. It has been suggested in numerous instances to create a separate article for this, and I agree Halogenated (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bioavailability of calcium in milk versus veggies

The article's section of bioavailability of calcium currently reads "Calcium from dairy products has a greater bioavailability than calcium from certain vegetables, such a spinach, that contain high levels of calcium-chelating agents.[21]" From what I've read (Am J Clin Nutr Heaney and Weaver 51 (4): 656), Spinach seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Kale and other vegetables in the Brassica genus are low-oxalate and high-calcium, which causes them to have better calcium bioavailability than milk. My previous edit to this effect was reverted. I assume that this was because I cited notmilk rather than actually looking it up in the american journal of clinical nutrition. If anyone still objects now that I have the primary source, feel free to revert again. Meviin (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a good primary reference for the material please feel free to add this. I reverted the edits largely due to the reference to notmilk.com which frankly is a terrible cherry-picked collection of scattered and often unrelated materials written from a highly biased POV. Some of the other points had been debated and decided upon previously here. If you wish to challenge them it would be best to bring new material to refute the previous decisions. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 22:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

Article states "Most humans lose the ability to fully digest milk after childhood (that is, they become lactose intolerant)." However, this is contradicted on the lactose intolerant page which claims only 20% of adults are lactose intolerant. Verytallrob (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You should fix it. There's no way MOST adults are lactose intolerant. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually yes, most adults are lactose intolerant. If you read the article here, it shows that only in a small number of racial groups do adults typically retain lactase activity. Basically, most caucasian people become lactose intolerant rapidly after breast-feeding ceases. Halogenated (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have read "most non-caucasian people" become lactose intolerant. Even a significant number of caucasians become at least partially lactose intolerant after breast-feeding ceases. Halogenated (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

milk and backpain?`

Is there any study showing a connection? Maybe milk allergies connected with backpain?Lakinekaki (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

trans fat

all the 1% and 2% and 3% and chocolate milk I've seen has trans fat on the label. like .1 or .2 per serving. I thought trans fat was bad for you and was an additive. why is it in milk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.74.112 (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Trans fat is also a naturally occurring form of saturated fat in animal products, and is inconsequential in those quantities. However some companies may add it for texture or flavour. This is not typical AFAIK. Halogenated (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

China

I think the Chinese 'distribution' section is a bit flawed: firstly it says that people drink milk who don't want to drink at meals; just a little grammatical niggle there, secondly, milk is only sold in 'pouches' in the north of China, in the south it is almost all in cartons, often flavoured and with added vitamins and calcium. Except in big cities, semi-skimmed milk is scarce and skimmed milk is practically non-existent. Recently a lactose-free variety of milk has been introduced to offer a largely lactose-intolerant population the nutrients that milk provides. Also, to encourage kids to drink milk, adverts with Yao Ming (7'6" basketball player) are everywhere, implying that it helps one to grow.

Gob home in ocamside ok.

To-do list for Milk: edit · history · watch · refresh 

There are numerous flaws with the structure, objectivity, and general writing style applied to this article. The use of weasel words is rampant, and it sounds like it has been edited with malicious intent. It is important to note the skeptism by many of the value of milk and possible health concerns, but statements such as "pus" are inaccurate and simply used to draw a negative emotional reaction. There are far too many examples to even list here, clearly a group of experienced wiki-editors are needed.

"Ethnic groups" (a cultural unit) should more properly read "racial groups" (a genetic unit) since lactose intolerace is based on genetic (not cultural) differences, in the opening section when citing lactose intolerance post toddler age.

I think it's fine that we present the claims made by anti-milk groups, but we need to seperate, or at least denote the validity of certain claims versus others. Lactose intolerance, is definitely a real, documented milk-related health concern- an autism link to milk consumption has only been postulated. We should explain to the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.255.89 (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Goat milk and folic acid

I propose adding the following sentence as the last sentence of the section "Nutrition: comparison by animal source": "Infants fed only goat milk with no folic acid supplement can suffer from deficiency, as goat milk has only one-tenth as much folic acid as cow's milk.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but only if goat's milk is the sole source of folic acid in their diet. Halogenated (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Its so damn hot. Milk was a bad choice.

History

This section makes some very specific claims, but has very few references. Without some citations, this section should not continue to exist as it does. I will try and hunt some down, but I'm strapped for time at the moment. Anyone care to help? Halogenated (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Milk pH?

Since pH is explained in the wikilink, it seems pointless to note that it is "slightly acidic." While this is true, the article on pH says that any liquid with a pH less than 7 is "acid", so to be consistent, this article should say that "milk is acid" or simply leave that phrase out, or find a reference that claims that 6.4-6.8 is "slightly acid." Otherwise "slightly acid" is OR. Bob98133 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Chirality

• Does anyone know Milk's chiral? I was wondering because I came across a line in "Through the Looking Glass", in which Alice muses whether or not Looking-Glass milk is edible. Thanks.

--Cokeandpoprocks (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

If you want to look for whst is semi skimmed milk don't bother =='''Link title''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.104.59 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor inaccuracies and corrections

• "The carbohydrate lactose gives milk its sweet taste and contributes about 40% of whole cow milk's calories." No, about a third of the Calories come from lactose. See the table under Nutritional Value; 20.8 Calories out of 62.85 (33%) are contributed by lactose.

An additional source: http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-milk-cow-whole-full-fat-3-25-fat_f-Y2lkPTM1NjkxJmJpZD0xJmZpZD02ODY1MSZlaWQ9MzUwMDcyMzk4JnBvcz0yJnBhcj0ma2V5PXdob2xlIG1pbGs.html

• "Milk is a source of Conjugated linoleic acid, a fatty acid that inhibits several types of cancer in mice.[citation needed]"

First, note that CLA is a fat, and whole milk would have the most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.255 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure which part of the statement is in question, but this is very well-known:

"Milk fat is the richest natural dietary source of CLA, averaging about 5.5 mg CLA/g." (http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/NationalDairyCouncil/Nutrition/Products/milkPage4.htm)

(http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin182.pdf)

"Antioxidant and anti-cancer properties have been attributed to CLA, and studies on mice and rats show encouraging results in hindering the growth of tumors in mammary, skin, and colon tissues.[6]"

(From the Wikipedia article "Conjugated linoleic acid," but note the study cited; the information did not just come from Wikipedia's users)

• "CLA has been shown to kill human skin cancer, colorectal cancer and breast cancer cells in vitro studies, and may help lower cholesterol and prevent atherosclerosis; CLA is present only in milk from grass-fed cows.[citation needed]"

All of these are well-known facts about CLA, except for the last part. That CLA is present only in milk from grass-fed cows is false; there are other foods (See http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin182.pdf, Page 87, for a list) that can be fed to cows to increase CLA content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.255 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The topic of Breast milk needs to be added onto the section of See also

Breast milk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.190.54 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Breast and breastfeeding are already linked. Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo in subsection 'modern production'

The table "Top Ten Buffalow Milk Producers" has a typo, it should be titled "Top Ten Buffalo Milk Producers". Also, because the numbers are from 2007, it is best titled as "Top Ten Buffalo Milk Producers in 2007"

Recommended consumption dispute for children, not adults

Recommended consumption "The U.S. federal government document Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010[85] recommends consumption of 3 glasses of fat-free or low-fat milk for adults and children 9 and older (less for younger children). This recommendation is disputed by some health researchers who call for more study of the issue,[86] given that there are other sources for calcium and vitamin D. The researchers also claim that the recommendations have been unduly influenced by the American dairy industry, and that whole milk may be better for health due to its increased ability to satiate hunger." [for children, however there was not scientific evidence for that]: my proposition

Actually the dispute on wether to consume whole milk or low-fat milk is addressed to children.

Thus, I am proposing to mention in the article that the dispute on the consumption of whole or low-fat milk is referred to children as well as a scientific evidence was not presented in the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelancer2014 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

The second sentence of the first paragraph of the article does not fit there. It is clearly an addition with some purpose but without any logic to be located at the very beginning of the article.90.244.5.9 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Rmhermen (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

In the Production worldwide the tables all state million tonnes when the source information from fao.org has MT as the column which is metric tonnes. Please update the tables so that people do not think that the US is producing 90 million million tonnes but the true value of 90 million metric tonnes.

Thanks EricSouthern (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Although it should probably be just tonnes or [[tonnes|metric tons]] instead of metric tonnes. Rmhermen (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

caption

There is an image with caption "A human baby feeding on its mother's milk" Shouldn't it be "A human baby feeding on his mother's milk" or "A human baby feeding on her mother's milk"? -- Ababcdc (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

"The amount of calcium from milk that is absorbed by the human body is disputed.[82]"

Source 82 is a study that never looks at absorption, only at fracture incidence, and external body measurements. Not only that, but I question the use of this study altogether. On table 4, one can see that the confidence intervals are quite large.

75.167.215.110 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I tend to agree with you, the article's authors don't specifically dispute the amount of absorption. Presumably calcium levels are indeed related to fracture incidence, but I feel this sort of statement should be more explicitly made by the authors. Either way I think this is a bit more than a simple edit request, I would bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as that would be the most helpful group for this Cannolis (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

language

the people searching this topic aren't American by majority, this page needs to be changed to british english, as american english is too vague.

example, nobody understands 'yogurt' except American. everyone uses the term 'curd' & it needs to change immediately...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.28.73 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2014‎ (UTC)

The use of Curd to mean yogurt is noted in our article as a disputed usage in Indian English. Rmhermen (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am somebody, and not American, and I understand "yogurt" just fine, so your claim is false. LjL (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The use of 'curd' for yogurt seems to be a peculiarity of the Indian subcontinent. In most English speaking countries such as Australia, the UK etc the words 'yogurt' or 'yoghurt' are standard and 'curd' normally refers to a sweet spread produced from lemon juice.--MichaelGG (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:curd says 1. from milk product. "Little Miss Muffet, sat on a tuffet, eating her Wiktionary:curds and whey.." Definitely American, Canadian, and probably English, Americans didn't make up rhyme! Student7 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I should have said current English usage in these countries, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_curd. --MichaelGG (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Possible harm" for review

I don't technically have a WP:COI, but I am an occasionally WP:activist vegan, so I wanted to make sure this wasn't controversial before I added it.

Milk from any mammal contains amino acids and microRNA which influence the drinker's metabolism and growth; this "programming" is beneficial for milk's natural consumers, namely infants of the same species as the milk producer, but post-infancy and trans-species milk consumption affects the mTORC1 metabolic pathway and may promote diseases of civilization such as obesity and diabetes.

I'd put it in the first paragraph of the subsection, after "Some studies show...", because it postulates how and why drinking milk could cause health problems. Everything is directly supported, and I kept it more WP:neutral than I thought I had to, but I'm still aware of an inappropriate anti-dairy sentiment. Let me know if it came through.

References

FourViolas (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead with it. If you don't like it, revert it and let me know why. FourViolas (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Milk

Added information about lack of benefits of Milk consumption found in research reports published by the New York Times Rim sim (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Sweet milk" in cooking recipes

I see the term "sweet milk" in recipes. "Sweet Milk" redirects to the this article. Then are "sweet milk" and "milk" synonymous? If "sweet milk" redirects here, IMO the term should be mentioned in the article. Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In old recipes, the term "sweet milk" was used for what we call "whole milk" today. The term was used to distinguish it from buttermilk. Deli nk (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that "sweet milk" meant milk before it had soured. These days most milk is pasteurized and does not "sour" properly because the bacteria that used to sour milk are killed. As a result milk "goes bad" (and tastes awful) rather than souring properly. Naturally soured milk tasted similar to the buttermilk of today, since buttermilk is basically milk with the fat content removed. Sour milk and buttermilk are acid (like pickles, for instance which are soured cukes) and can be used in "quick breads", breads made with baking powder and soda to form the air pockets (rise) rather than using yeast. Gandydancer (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But I thought skim milk was basically milk with the fat removed.CountMacula (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not a cook, but Condensed milk seems to answer the "sweet" part. Student7 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Skim milk is the milk left when fat is removed, but before refrigeration was available milk went sour very rapidly, plus it was easier to churn soured milk than sweet milk. Buttermilk used to look similar to skim milk, not thick like that of today. These days the purchased buttermilk is made by adding a culture to the milk. As you likely know, sweet milk can be made into buttermilk or sour milk for use in recipes by adding a tablespoon of vinegar or lemon juice (acids) to take the place of the lactic acid that would have "soured" the milk. Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Added August 2014 study at World Journal of Men's Health

World J Mens Health. 2014 Aug;32(2):76-82. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.2014.32.2.76. Epub 2014 Aug 26. A milk protein, casein, as a proliferation promoting factor in prostate cancer cells. Park SW, Kim JY, Kim YS, Lee SJ, Lee SD, Chung MK.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25237656

"Abstract PURPOSE:

Despite most epidemiologic studies reporting that an increase in milk intake affects the growth of prostate cancer, the results of experimental studies are not consistent. In this study, we investigated the proliferation of prostate cancer cells treated with casein, the main protein in milk. MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Prostate cancer cells (LNCaP and PC3), lung cancer cells (A459), stomach cancer cells (SNU484), breast cancer cells (MCF7), immortalized human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293), and immortalized normal prostate cells (RWPE1) were treated with either 0.1 or 1 mg/mL of α-casein and total casein extracted from bovine milk. Treatments were carried out in serum-free media for 72 hours. The proliferation of each cell line was evaluated by an 3-(4,5-Dimethyl-thiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. RESULTS:

α-Casein and total casein did not affect the proliferations of RWPE1, HEK293, A459, SNU484, MCF7, HEK293, or RWPE1 cells. However, PC3 cells treated with 1 mg/mL of α-casein and casein showed increased proliferation (228% and 166%, respectively), and the proliferation of LNCaP cells was also enhanced by 134% and 142%, respectively. The proliferation mechanism of α-casein in PC3 and LNCaP cells did not appear to be related to the induction of Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), since the level of IGF-1 did not change upon the supplementation of casein. CONCLUSIONS:

The milk protein, casein, promotes the proliferation of prostate cancer cells such as PC3 and LNCaP." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noiseformind (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the content. Keep in mind that when dealing with scientific sources, especially in health matters (see WP:MEDRS) we need secondary sources (i.e. review articles) that give context to primary studies like you used. This helps us assess WP:WEIGHT of the study and it's findings within the scientific community to determine if it's even worth mentioning. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the content was readded. There seems to be some confusion here, but this is a primary source regardless of it being peer-reviewed. Noiseformind, primary sources describe the actual experiments done in scientific literature, while secondary sources are literature reviews that are written explicitly as to summarize the current state of the literature using mostly primary sources like this. [[[WP:MEDRS]] explains why we don't use sources like this. If you follow the link to the source in PubMed, you'll see related citations on the right where some of them are marked as reviews. Those are the kind of sources we consider reliable for medical information. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

REQUEST - Please add Freezing Point of Whole Cow's Milk

REQUEST: This article seems to be missing the freezing point of whole cow's milk. Someone please add text to this article. Yes, I'm aware that contents of milk varies, but there has to be some temperature range, so please state it and explain. After you fix this issue, please respond here with the "Done" template. Thanks. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Indian vs Western Dairy Practices

I've been told by an Indian acquaintance that milk produced by most Indian dairies differs from Western-produced milk due to Indian dairies not calving the cows as frequently (since many Indians consider cows sacred and wouldn't be able to sell the excess calves to be made into veal). I've looked through this article and through similar places on Wikipedia but haven't been able to find any mention of this. It would probably be something worth noting in both the nutrition section and production section. (edit: Assuming a reliable source can be found.)—69.143.123.188 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me walk this through.

1) Indian cattle do differ from European cattle. See Category:Cattle breeds originating in India. I don't think this affects the dynamics of the industry substantially.

2)It is a business there like everywhere else. Six states ban killing cattle. See Animal husbandry in India. Does the industry "collect" in states which permit killing or are male calves shipped to states in which killing is legal? Probably worth adding to some article, when a cite can be found.

3)Dairy producers everywhere ensure cattle are bred "on schedule." If this fails, cows "dry up" and they are "fed for nothing" which does not meet the farmer's business model.

4)No dairy farmer is going to avoid impregnation of cows because the offspring is male in 50% of the cases! Lactation results which is desirable.

My take: urban myth. Student7 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Where your milk comes from?

Hi guys

I just wanna ask, where this news-article from the sun would fit in? Thanks!

• http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6584984/How-much-do-you-really-know-about-where-your-milk-comes-from.html

--huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150707022725/http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata to http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point

Under Lactose Intolerance, I changed "microflora that excretes" to "microflora that excrete." Though flora is singular, it is a collective noun, and it seems to me it's being used in a plural sense here. The author is referring to the billions of gut bacteria that constitute the biome.

If my emendation seems wrongheaded to experts in the field who use such terminology all the time, please feel free to change it back. KC 05:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Slight Correction should be made

The very beginning of this article defines milk as white but Hippos make pinkish milk and besides it probably shouldn't be defined with a color anyway. --2605:A000:D141:3800:9450:4878:E749:C80 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Lactose in Forsythia Flowers?

The article states that lactose is found in forsythia flowers, but the article for forsythia flowers states that the presence of lactose cannot be confirmed. The information between the two articles should be conformed. At the very least, the information provided in the Milk article stating that lactose is contained in forsythia flowers and other tropical shrubs should be cleaned up (eg naming the tropical shrubs) and cited.

Mike Watson (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I read a few web sources. See this [9] for example. I think we should just remove any mention. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100314123216/http://www.preventcancer.com:80/consumers/general/milk.htm to http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

13.1 Reduction or elimination of lactose

this section ends with saying that you cant get sour milk at home from the milk sold in the shops because of pasteurisation killing the microbes in milk that would ferment it. the source given to back up this is " Joy of Cooking The All Purpose Cookbook Sixth Edition, Fifth Revision Irma S. Rombauer, Marion Rombauer Becker ; illustrated by Ginnie Hofmann and Ikki Matsumoto Published 1975". now i doubt if it is a sufficently reliable source to begin with. its nowhere near a scientific source, instead it is an "All Purpose Cookbook". you just dont want to rely on this kind of literature for reliable information on chemistry or biology. and it was written in 1975, some 40 years ago. since then so many once popularized beliefs have been reversed (concerning margarine, eggs, and perhaps milk as well, to name only what pops up in my mind), so it must be outdated on several points, if it had had been reliable in the first place. and pasterized milk does go sour, its shelf life is merely 3 days refrigerated. it is ultrapasterization, that kills off enough of the bacteria responsible for fermentation, to keep milk unspoiled for months (if unopened) w/o refrigeration - this kind of milk ends up spoiled finally by rotting bacteria, with an unconsumptible bitter taste - probably the bacteria gets inside the milk from the air once opened. so bottomline, the statement concerning "simple pasteurisation" and the source used are both unworthy from an encyclopedical aspect.80.98.114.70 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

same sentence "Another milk with Lactococcus lactis bacteria cultures ("cultured buttermilk") often is used in cooking to replace the traditional use of naturally soured milk,..." - it would be useful to avoid such generalisations, or always supllement them with a geographical location and era, like which century and decade it is supposed to be true for. as of today (2016) with concern to continental Hungary, I have never heard of such "cultured buttermilk". theres "cooking cream" but thats a completely different kind of fish.80.98.114.70 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565254_3/Whale.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2016

instead of saying including protein and lactose. it should was including protein and sugar as the human body metabolizes lactose into sugar before it becomes used as a nutrient 198.52.13.15 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)]

 Not done The statement "It contains many other nutrients including protein and lactose" is correct. It would not be correct if it stated "[Milk] contains ... protein and sugar", because as you said, sugar (glucose) is a metabolite of lactose; milk does not contain significant amounts of glucose, the body metabolizes lactose to produce it. General Ization ^Talk 22:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor correction to the response. "Lactose is a disaccharide sugar composed of galactose and glucose that is found in milk." During digestion, each lactose molecule is hydrolyzed into one molecule of glucose and one molecule of galactose.

The word "sugar" is used for any monosaccharide, disaccharide, or soluble oligosaccharide. In many nations it means sucrose (a glucose - fructose disaccharide) unless specified otherwise. Sucrose is also called "Table sugar". "Blood sugar" is often used as a reference to glucose, but the word "sugar" alone should not be assumed to be a reference to glucose. Drbits (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The image "A glass of pasteurized cow's milk"

Pasteurization makes little difference in the appearance of whole cow's milk. Homogenization changes the appearance more than pasteurization. As mentioned in the main article, light refraction and apparent color can be changed by homogenization. This milk appears to be homogenized. Drbits (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of mursik gourd (fermented milk)

One of the core tenets of wikipedia is neutral point of view. In this page milk handling equipment portrayed (i.e jerrycans urns etc) are more or less western in origin. Does this imply that the westerners only consume milk, Well No... I tried to bring in a african perspective of a gourd used to handle the same but that has been hastly been reverted. I now am left wondering do you only wish to see your pespective or do you wish to see a collective perspective. while i can revert the changes I had made, I wish not to set off a Edit War So please advice.. Shadychiri (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your view here. I removed the image because it is a marginal issue for the section on Additives and flavoring per WP:UNDUE. Understanding how the gourd influences milk qualities would require additional explanation to make an isolated case, WP:NOTCATALOG. Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of loosely associated images per WP:NOTGALLERY. --Zefr (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to its former state. Please note that the three items under the said item are all containers similar to the contested containerShadychiri (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note: Talk discussions are not to be removed if you disagree with the editor. One opinion on why the image of milk bottles likely has been included in the article because it represents history of a large population of milk consumers on different continents, in contrast to a small population on one continent where the gourd was used. --Zefr (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Zefr, Well Where is Neutrality There? I have ammended it to be under fermented milk products I guess you can agree that it belongs there. :P Shadychiri (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that is a more logical place for it and the caption reference helps. This seems sufficient to me. --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620033141/http://pages.usherbrooke.ca/infosbio/PSL705/temp/evolution%20immune%20system.pdf to http://pages.usherbrooke.ca/infosbio/PSL705/temp/evolution%20immune%20system.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510010227/http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/12514_009_040.pdf to http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/12514_009_040.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202121113/http://www.ams.usda.gov/howtobuy/dairy.htm to http://www.ams.usda.gov/howtobuy/dairy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815032450/http://www.rodale.com/flavored-milk-and-school-lunch-programs to http://www.rodale.com/flavored-milk-and-school-lunch-programs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101031090238/http://www.dairyuk.org/for-consumers-mainmenu-278/find-me-a-milkman-mainmenu-290 to http://www.dairyuk.org/for-consumers-mainmenu-278/find-me-a-milkman-mainmenu-290
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405054121/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/milk.htm to http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/milk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2017

Armin.alinia.kashani (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

WoW

I expected a more etense and detailed article... Even the History section is somehow squalid, why is it this?--Neurorebel (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Packaging in Uruguay

I dont have enough time to add it but as anecdote im not sure if it was until the 1960s as i put or the 1970s, i will ask that to my mayors, in the good old days as of vacas gordas nation, distribution was on the England side style, the milkmen used to daily poor deposit the milk bottles on the doors of the houses and take back the empty bottles within the money that was under the bottle by the customer as payment for the consumed milk. Also I can remember that in the early 1980s some horse wagons still remained in use as for home delivery facility for milk.--Neurorebel (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Neurorebel: By poor I assume you mean put? (Milkmen pouring milk on customers' doors would likely not be appreciated. ) General Ization ^Talk 16:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I mean to deposite the bottles onm a side of the doors, is not that to poor? by the way is it to poor just like to drop something? sorry but i really only know that verb from its context and not the definition (like something the is put in a rough manner), you step on me when i was trying to purge the text, other word that i know in the same way is facility i hope that not only mean installation, in that case read facilitation or system.--Neurorebel (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

To pour is to dispense the contents, usually liquid, of a vessel by means of gravity. "Please pour me a cup of coffee." Poor means something else altogether. I think the word you are looking for is put or place, in the context of deposit. "Place the cup on the table." General Ization ^Talk 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

All of this aside, I clearly understood your meaning, and I am old enough to remember when milkmen (and women) did the same thing here in the United States (quite a long time ago). I believe there are a few (probably very few, mostly rural) communities here where milk delivery is still available at the door. General Ization ^Talk 17:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Very much thanks for your patience, I thought that it was like to put in determinate manner like it could to roughly drop it or carefully put in some order, better said to pŕemeditelty put something but that is English and Jesus Christ by own means

Is it that in Uruguay we are in that way that we simply poor things, why to care for and loose time accommodating? just collect things from the floor and throw them to someone else, such are the psychoactive effects of drinking mate (beverage) 24/7.

Context understanding is good but it does nothing without a dictionary--Neurorebel (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: Poor is what I will turn if spend too much time in wikipedia... Finally I asked my mother and she told me that milk delivery was on vogue until the end of the sixties and that its end was also the end of the bottled milk, also she told me that the "under the bottle" payment was mostly for flats, exactly when was that long time ago that you say? now that you mention, I quietly remember watching Charles Chaplin stealing money from under the milk bottles. I can assure you thst the last time I saw a horse powered milk wagon in Montevideo was sometime in the 90s, I could not forget that.

We could write a wikinews article about.--Neurorebel (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bisoncentral.com/index.php?c=63&d=73&a=1022&w=2&r=Y
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206155037/http://www.zerolactose.be/ to http://www.zerolactose.be/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

Ry4n R055 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.99.30 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Milk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323134129/http://www.dairyco.org.uk/market-information/farming-data/cow-numbers/world-cow-numbers/ to http://www.dairyco.org.uk/market-information/farming-data/cow-numbers/world-cow-numbers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116060017/http://www.dairyco.org.uk/talking-to-the-public/talking-to-schools/providing-school-milk/the-history-of-milk/ to http://www.dairyco.org.uk/talking-to-the-public/talking-to-schools/providing-school-milk/the-history-of-milk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018

milk is not from pigs i would like to change that. 162.78.70.194 (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See Milk#Sources aside from cows. Female pigs, like other mammals, do produce milk, though it is not widely commercialized. General Ization ^Talk 22:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

2600:6C50:557F:EA49:74B8:8FCC:E49D:F4AF (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Schuh conceived of 1% milk while working in the deli section of Ralph's in Bellflower, California in 1985.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

new study showing jumping spiders producing milk

National Geographic article (entitled 'Not just mammals: Some spiders nurse their young with milk') reporting on a study published in Science journal. "According to a study published today in the journal Science, a jumping spider native to southeastern Asia ... has been found to suckle its babies with a nutritious fluid secreted by its own body. The liquid contains a solution of sugars, fats, and proteins, so the researchers, led by conservation biologist Rui-Chang Quan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, are calling it milk."

--Philologia (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

But it's not milk, so not relevant to this article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There's also the issue of it being a primary study and no commentary by secondary WP:SCIRS sources showing the scientific community even considers it a legitimate name for what these spiders do. There's really nothing to include in this article on the paper right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2019

Milk is by far the greatest drink and if you're dairy free or lactose intolerant, i feel so sorry for you.

the milk god Yeet16milk (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia policy requires that content be verifiable. Please provide a reliable source for your claims. Benjamin (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Review

According to a literature review in the Iranian Journal of Public Health, milk might increase risk of various types of cancer. Benjamin (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Benjaminikuta: for editing medical content in Wikipedia, competence in understanding the content and recognizing high-quality sources is assumed; WP:CIR. Perhaps you didn't know that the Iranian journal is not Medline indexed (disqualifying it from use), and its impact factor is so low it barely registers (low reputation and quality). Please read and understand WP:MEDRS for choosing the best sources for Wikipedia medical content before further editing topics on food, nutrition, and diseases. --Zefr (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nutrition: composition of milk

The table headed 'Nutritional content of cow,soy,almond and oat milks' shows incorrect values or at least I cannot make sense of them, and units are not given,; and these incorrect values give a wrong impression of relativity between different milks. THe reference to USDA is OK but the values taken are wrong. 1. You need to state whether on fresh weight or dry weight basis, and if the latter, what the % dry matter is. I presume this figures are 'as consumed' ie fresh weight. You must also state what quantity of milk - I assume here 100 g ie the values are % of fresh weight.It would also be helpful to state % water at the top of the table. 2. The values are wrong and don't match USDA data. Cows milk is typically ca 88% water so 12% 'dry matter'. The sum of your values for protein, fat and carbohydrate exceed 27%. As the value for sugars exceeds that for carbohydrates, it would be kind to note why (one is by difference, the other by analysis). The SOY values are also wrong - 90% water but sum of protein, fat carbohydrate and fibre is about 16%. Calories are too high relative to USDA.I assume all the other values in this table need checking, but have not done so. 3. Good accurate values for cows and many other milks are available from USDA and also from the UK Food Standards Agency publications. Please check the values for soy, almond and oat milk also. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171265/nutrients gives values per 100 go fresh milk 3.25% fat of: Water 88g, energy 61 kcal ; protein 3.15 g, fat 3.25g, carbohydrate 4.8g, and sugars 5.05 g. These values are VERY different from those in the article .

4. This table appears in several articles eg on soy, oat and almond milks. It needs fixing in all of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shropshire wanderer (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Shropshire wanderer: As long as you use WP:RS sources for nutrient analysis - the USDA National Nutrient Database is widely preferred on Wikipedia - you are free to make edits yourself. 1) As shown in the upper left of the table for calories, the measurement used in this table is one US cup or 243 ml (although most nutrient tables use 100 grams as the standard amount, allowing use of percentages for each component or nutrient; personally, I prefer 100 g as the standard amount, but liquid measures are usually per cup). 2) the values for cow milk and soy milk are correct as shown and produced by the USDA, as I confirm after a brief review of each. 3-4) You should recheck and work on the tables yourself, if you find discrepancies. You can ask for help at the Food and Drink Wikiproject talk page. --Zefr (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Odd English

"This ability, which allows them to digest lactose into adulthood, is called lactase persistence. The distribution of people with lactase persistence is not homogeneous in the world. For instance, they are more than 90% in North Europe, and as low as 5% in parts of Asia and Africa.[130]"

The last sentence there lacks congruity with the preceding sentences. It doesn't make sense. Who is "they" referring to? 174.29.148.50 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Reworded a bit to clarify per the reference. Vsmith (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes much more sense now!  :-) 174.29.148.50 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Hay-milk" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hay-milk. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC) 174.29.148.50 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What is this hay-milk? I searched on the internet and it's milk from cows that a grass pastured in summer and hay fed in winter. Is hay-milk worthy enough for it's own article or should it just be a paragraph/subsection of the Milk article as a type of farming technique? It's my thought that it's just a farming technique.

174.29.148.50 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Milk is a symbolism for white power

Under the "In language and culture" section, it should note that milk is used as a symbolism for white power by white supremacists. This is because the ability to digest lactose in milk is commonly found in white Europeans. I am aware that HuffPost is not reliable, but the article contains links to other sources that are reliable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-science-dna.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/milk-white-supremacy-racism_n_5bffad35e4b0864f4f6a3e28

216.165.204.97 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be undue to give it more than a brief mention. Benjamin (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a brief mention should be made. Also, I believe that this information can be added in the lactase persistence and lactose intolerance articles. 216.165.204.97 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:RECENTISM. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This paper published in the Brooklyn Law Review argues that milk has been used as a symbol and a tool for white supremacy for a long time. The paper is identified as "Notable & Quotable" by the Wall Street Journal.

This paper published in the Animal Studies Journal argues the same thing.

WP mentions the use of milk as a symbol for white power in the article about the alt-right under the "Tactics" section.

I argue that this is NOT a case of WP:RECENTISM. 216.165.204.97 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The time frame for the mutation allowing the digestion of milk has been further refined

Suggest the line: Thousands of years ago, a chance mutation spread in human populations in Europe that enabled the production of lactase in adulthood. be changed to: Less than 3000 years ago, a chance mutation. . .

Source: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/warrior-skeletons-reveal-bronze-age-europeans-couldn-t-drink-milk JeffRLamb (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Top Buffalo Milk Producing Countries in the World - 2019

Top ten buffalo milk producers in the year 2019:

Rank Country Buffalo Milk Production (Metric Tonnes) 1 India 70,000,000 2 Pakistan 24,370,000 3 China 3,050,000 4 Egypt 2,614,500 5 Nepal 1,188,433 6 Myanmar 309,000 7 Italy 194,893 8 Sri Lanka 65,000 9 Iran 65,000 10 Turkey 51,947

GreatVlaue (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This information is already in the Wikipedia article with these exact numbers (dated 2013), so I doubt that's 2019 data. Milk § Production worldwide I suspect they got it from the same source we did (or from us, possibly). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Protected?

Does this page really need to be protected? I wouldn't see many people trying to vandalize an article about animal lactate.

  Yes. It's a frequently vandalised and manipulated page.  Halogenated (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be removed

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed if no notes can be added to it as in my opinion it is pointless having an empty tab within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

non dairy milk

Why is non dairy milk giving such a prominent role in this article, at the top of the article it says "this article is about the fluid produced by the mammary glands of mammals. For the milk-like beverages derived from plants, see Plant milk." If one is going to profile non dairy milk, then criticism of non dairy milk should be included, like the calcium added comes from lime stone, and oat milk has as much sugar as coca cola. I suggest deletion of the plant milk section RomanGrandpa (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Environmental impact

I recommend a major revamp to the environmental impact section, it keeps on making references to plant milk, but this article isn't a compare and contrast article nor is it about plant milk...this article needs a serious revamp, again "this article is about the fluid produced by the mammary glands of mammals. For the milk-like beverages derived from plants, see Plant milk." — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanGrandpa (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

edit protected page, Criticism section

I'm petitioning to remove this line from the Criticism section: "Milk production is also resource intensive. On a global weighted average, for the production of a given volume of milk, a thousand times as much water has to be used.[164]" It comes after the Environmental Impacts section without adding additional information, makes a statement, and doesn't explain what is produced with a thousand times less water in the comparison. Additionally, the section already mentions "environmental concerns" in the opening sentence.

Largely, the Criticism section is redundant after introducing vegans except that: "It is often argued that it is unnatural for humans to drink milk from cows (or other animals) because mammals normally do not drink milk beyond the weaning period, nor do they drink milk from another species.[163]"

DHHornfeldt (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on the cited source, it's 1,000 litres of water used per litre of milk produced. I've clarified this. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not certain why the "criticism section" section is even there, all it really does is profile subjective vegan philosophy and has some redundant health and environmental information, I suggest deletion of the section.RomanGrandpa (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To avoid redundancy , I deleted the environmental impact section, and that issue is addressed in the criticism section. The environmental section was just a big compare and contrast debate between milk and plant milk any way, so it needed to go.RomanGrandpa (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)