Talk:Milk/Archive 2005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Cow's Milk
[edit] Seperate Cow's Milk Section
I would like to suggest a seperate Cow's milk section, which could involved the nuitrition, ethics, and other specific information around the Food Cow's milk. The Milk page should be less devoted to Dairy and more devoted to milk. If there are no arguments against this, I will make the change myself in a few days
- Most of the lionks to this page will be for cow's milk so changing it will not help most people following those links. Rmhermen 23:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Logical fallacy
"Milk has also been linked in a small number of studies to osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease, obesity and high blood pressure. Because of milks high protein content, and inability of the body to digest these, it is unable to fully absorb the calcium. Countries like China where dairy is rarely used, diseases like this are unknown."
The reader is offered a Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy). I'm a vegan vegetarian and a PETA member myself but this is not a neutral description, as the diet in those countries varies in more than the observed way and the sentence implies a causality that is not explained. At least this needs a much more thorough analysis of the topic. -- Fasten 03:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the same section appears this sentence: However breeds of cattle produce milk that is significantly different from that of others as do different mammals' from others. Huh? Wmahan. 20:06, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph referred to by Fasten. Not only was it poorly written, but no source is provided for a claim which is relatively unheard of. If someone wants to include this, please provide references, but you can't say it in such an authoritative manner- milk has hardly been definitively "linked" to any of these problems.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 01:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Here's the removed paragraph. Maybe it can be written in a more NPOV style to describe critics' claims.
- Milk has also been linked in a small number of studies to osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease, obesity and high blood pressure. Because of milk's high protein content, and inability of the body to digest it, it is unable to fully absorb the calcium. In some countries where dairy is rarely used, such as China, these diseases are rare, although it is unclear whether dairy consumption is a cause. Wmahan. 02:26, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
- I've added a section with references for some of the criticisms and claimed benefits. Are there still objections to the neutrality of the article? Wmahan. 04:32, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
- I removed the {{npov}} tag. If anyone disputes the current version's neutrality, please leave a note here. Wmahan. 22:05, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
I am a student of Biochemistry Department and during my presentation of a seminar, one of my professors asked me why people drink milk when they want to sleep.In otherwods, there is a link between milk and sleep and this wasn't highlighted in any part of this write-up.[Anih, A.N.(Bch/Mcb),UNN]
I think it's just because it's warm, and the warmth relaxes.
[edit] Rewriting the bottom paragraph
That bottom paragraph ("Ethical Issues") needs to be rewritten, not because of POV concerns, but because it is terribly done, and the article would be better without such weak writing. It's filled with the usual journalistic weasle wording: "many people", "some people consider", "some of the calves", "some people also believe", "some also ohject." All of these are lazy and not very helpful to the reader. Who are these "some" people and are they just the fringe, like the "some people" that don't believe the moon landing happened or more mainstream like the "some people" who believe in the abiotic genesis of oil -- still a minority, but not entirely ignored.
The rest of the article is well written, and that terrible paragraph really stands out, as if tacked on. And before anybody complains about a drive by deletion by somebody with only a single minor edit in their history, note I've been doing this for much longer, but just finally decided to get an account.
Here is the paragraph: "Many people concerned about animal welfare (especially vegans) do not drink milk. An increasing number of dairy cows are being raised on factory farms, which some people consider cruel. On many farms, the calves are separated from their mothers within days of birth to prevent the calf from drinking the milk so that humans can drink it instead. Some of the calves born by dairy cows are raised in crates for veal and are slaughtered three to eighteen weeks later. On many farms, once a dairy cow's milk production decreases, she is also slaughtered at an age that is a fraction of her natural lifespan. Some people also believe that the use of bovine growth hormone to increase milk production in cows is unethical. For these reasons, either in an attempt to reduce animal suffering or to prevent animals from being killed, some people choose to not consume milk. Some also object to drinking milk for environmental reasons."
To 24.26.131.252, I see that you wrote the section and that you are also active in the vegan areas of the site. Please don't take this as an attack on your views (I was a strict veg for ten years), but bad writing makes me cry. --Jjayson 06:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Move?
I dislike the way the Milk (disambiguation) is named. I think Milk should be a redirect to the disambiguation, and this have another name, linked to from the disambig page. I feel that this makes more sense, and it's also the way just about every other dusambiguation page i have seen is done. What would you think? --Phroziac (talk) 29 June 2005 02:12 (UTC)
- It's just fine as it is. Of the many article/disambiguation pages that work this way, this one is one of the clearest and easiest to decide. Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 08:36 (UTC)
- It's a clear case of primary disambiguation, and the most logical way to structure the articles. 217.33.74.20 29 June 2005 11:11 (UTC)
- Ok, I will leave it alone. --Phroziac (talk) 1 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)
[edit] "ethnic origin"
Hi, i have recenty changed the bit about developing lactose intolerance and ethinc origin. i will explain why (sorry if it becomes hard to follow, my english skills are not satisfactory to me too, ask if you want me to try to be more clear):
Lactose intolerance is due to the lack of an enzyme called lactase that at least in the early stages of life is synthetized by certain cells in humans and mammals in general. This enzyme degrades the disacarid lactose into its constitutens, that is galactose and glucose, wich we metabolize for example as a source of energy (via further degradation through oxydation wich is combustion, much like burning wood). Like all enzymes lactase is a protein and ,like all proteins, it is a sequence of aminoacids wich is codified in the genetic code. Not all the genetic code is expressed throughout all our life in all our cells. For example, the cells that produce amilasa, the enzyme that degrades the polysacarid almidon, in our salival glands, express the genes for this enzyme, the cells in our ear do not despite having an identical copy of the same genetic code (a whole individual develops from a single cell product of the fecundation of an egg by an spermatozoid, this cell divides succesive times -and the cells originated by that division do so too, and so on...- throughout all our lives with an overall decreasing rate -unevenly distributed decrease-). Altough initially and throughout our early years humans usually synthetize lactase (as all mammals), many persons eventually start producing less and less. Lactose ingestion without lactase leads to lasctose accumulation in our digestive system wich is full of bacteria wich thrive in a sugar rich enviornment (through fermentation they obtain energy without oxygen, however they release methane, a gas). This reduction is due to regulation mechanisms of the expression of the genetic code, i urge you to read the article about genetics in this ever-bettering encyclopedia, it is very mature at the moment and should help you understand some of the known mechanisms if you are so inclined. The genetic code varies from person to person, some persons never stop synthetizing lactase, some do stop synthetizing it (slower or faster, it depends on genes and other variables, thats why regulation is usually called feedback). We have historicaly talked about races, this was due to the certainity derived from experience that when an individual had some characteristics (visible, that is a phenoype wich depends on the genotype or genes but not solely) it usually had others. This is correct to a degree, population genetics explain how some genes (genotype) become statistically more common in a certain population (interbreeding group) in a somehow stable enviornment, it does not imply superiority (it just implies diferential gene transmission rates in a gene-centric view, see williams revolution). However, since Mendel we talk about the independant segregation of genes, every human has twice the amount of genes needed. That means that it receives redundant information from the mother and the father, they had too, and so the mother and the father do not pass all their genes, the son or daughter dooes not either. There is a random segregation of genes, that is wich gene of the two that codify for the same characteristic is passed (this is more complex because segregation is not independant always, for example see sex dependant segregation and some genetic deseases as hemophilly). Our genes are that wich regulates the synthesis of lactase (altough not solely, regulation is feedback), and thus the possibility of developing lactose intolerance, depends on them. It is sais that some populations have the genes that lead to the decrease in the rate of lactase syhtesis in a more widespread way. But races or ethnic origin as "latinos", "blacks", etcetera, are not populations. Some populations in africa have had less interbreed between them than with europeans, it could be said that finding populations in the human race is now impossible due to interbreeding (wich is necessary or else we risk that genes that alone would be inocuous with themselves are fatal, as anemia, a genetic "disease" wich in its minor form has a low risk and gives immunity to malaria wich is in the mediterranean is a much more common and lethal disease, and it is here that genetical anemia is widespread, but when two persons with minor anemis breed, their sond and daughters could have the major form of this disease wich is lethal without a bone medule transplant). Forgive the long and twisted road that i took to explain this: We cannot expect seriously that (for example) a person has some gene allele (possible "value" of a gene) due to some totally unrelated allelle (as that wich leads to higher or lower concentrarion of melanin in the skins and thus to skin tone) or set of them (like that in wich we base the supposed race or ethinc origin of a person) without relying in statistics wich are as statistically correct (and wothwhile) as arbitrary and flawed (we have to demonstrate statistically that ten thousand puerto ricans have the same statistical allele frequency that ten thousand cubans or ten thousand bolivian or ten thousand brazillian or then tousand nicaraguan or else we should leave this statistics as valid as relating hair colour to profession).
[edit] Milk bottle news
I have removed a link to a 'milk bottle news' site twice. While the site is somewhat related to milk, the collection of milk bottles really adds nothing to this article. I suggest an article on milk bottles be started and the link posted there. Uriah923 14:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- You can start it here, then. Andy Mabbett 16:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
It is unreasonable to list a irrelevant link on a page and then expect the remover to create a page on which it would be relevent. However, I will oblige just because I'm nice. Uriah923 16:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reference re-added
A reference was removed without explanation. It has been re-added, as it was used to add content to the article on August 19, 2005. Per Wikipedia policy, a reference must be provided when information is "gleaned from an external souce." As that is the case here, to remove the reference would put the article in copyright violation. Uriah923 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Value of ON content and quality of reference
The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of Brands
I suggest that the list of milk brands isn't central to the article and should be moved to a seperate article. Any comment?--JBellis 20:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. It was talked about last year but nothing was done. I'll do it now. Ashmoo 03:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Comparison Information
I particularly like the (brief) passage that compares Human milk and Cow's milk. This information, however, is found under the heading of rdST...seems (vastly) out of place to me. I'd like to see it in it's own section, comparing the nutrition information to the other variations of milk (goats, coconut's etc.). Kingerik 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What kind of calcium is in it?
Is it free calcium ions, or something imbedded in proteins that has to be broken down, or some kind of salt/base combination? --211.116.88.76 13:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Contamination
Milk in North America is highly contaminated with growth hormones. In Canada, half of the milk supply is adulterated. In the USA it is worse. It's likely to be contaminated with antibiotics as well.
Incidentally, the growth hormone issue is well-accepted. The only controversy was how badly they were contaminated compared to natural levels in the human body. Scientists didn't think dietary growth hormones were a problem until they realized they had miscalculated natural levels by a factor of 10x.
Also, breastmilk is contaminated with heavy metals. So much so that breastfeeding is an effective way of getting rid of them, the only way of getting rid of fat-soluble pollutants. It's still far better for infants than formula but it's not as healthy as it could be.
