Talk:Milk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	To-do list for Milk:	edit - history - watch - refresh
	We should explain to the readers what justifies such a lengthy discussion regarding health benefits or woes when the current article also clearly stresses that most humans worldwide become animal milk (lactose) intolerant after leaving babyhood. In other words – animal milk is clearly not natural or necessary for any mammal including humans to be consumed after child-hood - so why the overlong health discussion relating to animal-milk? We should maybe turn this into an animal-milk taste discussion rather than a health discussion? What about a pure taste-based discussion for those few humans who can actually cope with consuming animal-milk after baby-hood? That would be less confusing? Also – when we discuss the evolution of culture and taste, cream cheese etc, we should stress that there are many non-dairy milk products available that can be tolerated by everyone? The article should also explain what producing milk means for the mother animal. 1. In order for human mammals to drink the baby milk of another mammal species - humans have to remove mother and child from each other. In the US and Europe this happens, in most cases, only a few hours after birth of the mammal baby. Both mother and baby/child suffer for weeks/months due to the separation. Most mother cows have the faith of losing all their babies and suffering under it for as long as they are alive. 2. Baby cows / calves have to drink milk replacer so that human adults can drink the baby-milk that was intended by nature to belong only to them. 3. A discussion might be necessary: Why do not humans consume a milk-replacer instead of baby-cows? Is it merely a taste issue in modern society? The article needs to be prosified. Large parts of the article consists of lists. (See Butter) The article delves on the patterns of "developed" nations. What about practices in the underdeveloped nations The article starts off with cow's milk as the second section and other animals' as the eighth. Why not discuss milk producing animals right at the beginning? Milk adulteration? Common in countries such as India Copyediting needed> eg. Male calves are a "useless byproduct" ... followed by veal crates Long and winding sentence. Uses of milk? edibles+cosmetics etc Is it natural for humans to consume milk long after the infant stage? Some graphs (such as milk related statistics) would be a welcome addition History is very short, and again documents only the "First World" countries. Inline references not formatted correctly -Sources are all inline web-links and it takes a lot of work to tell if they are good references or not. Suggest using cite.php footnotes; if not, at least needs a references section detailing all the sources linked to. Needs a lot more references. Many stub sections. History section under cows milk could be a whole article, not just a paragraph. Improve average prose. Move some links in the "external links" section to "references" section The section discussing how milk consumption can increase one's risk for prostate cancer fails to mention that milk may also reduce one's risk, and therefore the data is mixed/inconclusive. A correlation between low Vitamin D levels (a problem milk consumption helps alleviate) and increased prostate cancer risk have been observed.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Milk is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Milk has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

[edit] Talk archive

[edit] Impacts of Milk

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

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

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

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

Damn, I admire securiger's mastery of rebuttal info. I will assume Drygrain's proposal was naive rather than disingenuous and flesh out the point. PETA is a poor source for accurate health info because they have made it quite clear by publications, public statements, and public actions, that their primary purpose is indeed ethical-- to persuade people to stop using animals. Like many, if not most, self-righteous groups with a moral message, they pick and choose the facts to present to support their cause. At a minimum, their dishonesty lies in not presenting the balance of the evidence or contradictory evidence. If we are less charitable, we might suspect that they would not let a little thing like evidence get in the way of a persuasive argument. For instance, a quick look at one of items in the page link supplied by Drygrain illustrates both exaggeration to the point of dishonesty and a failure to acknowledge contradictory evidence. In section "4. Diabetes", three assertions are made:
- Insulin-dependent diabetes (Type I or childhood-onset) is linked to consumption of dairy products. The wording suggests a causal link, doesn't it? It is a weak statistical link between cow milk use in the first 4 months of life, far from causal, inconsistently confirmed. The two references were studies published in 1990 and 1992, but conspicuously absent are several more recent studies which failed to confirm a strong correlation.
- Epidemiological studies of various countries show a strong correlation between the use of dairy products and the incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes. IDDM occurs in about 1 in 400 children. If a child is fed primarily a cow milk formula before age 4 months instead of nursing, the child's risk rises to about 1 in 300.
- Researchers in 1992 found that a specific dairy protein sparks an auto-immune reaction, which is believed to be what destroys the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. No they didn't-- they speculated that this might be the mechanism if the causal association is true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Pasturisation & UHT

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] milksucks?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Milk Flavourings

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

[edit] Other animals' milk used for human consumption?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Snake milk?

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

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

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

[edit] Composition and nutrition

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

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

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

[edit] Did the word milk...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Added some information

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

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

[edit] Side-effects?

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

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

[edit] Bagged in Canada

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

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

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

[edit] Clarification Needed

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

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

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

[edit] "In Scotland"

Removed this paragraph added by anonymous contributor user:155.136.80.2

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

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

195.112.43.35 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White blood cells/ Somatic cells / pus

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

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

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

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

[edit] Freezing point and boiling point

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

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

[edit] Article split

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

[edit] Anti-milk POV

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

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

Milk contains varying levels of white blood cells, depending upon the health of the source animals; controversy surrounds whether these are simply somatic cells or, in an alternate form, pus ^[1]. In the United States, one to seven drops of these cells are in every eight-ounce glass of milk, varying by state, according to guidelines set up by the Food and Drug Administration and statistics reported by the dairy industry ^[2]. Only one state out of all fifty, Hawaii, has a cell count lower than the dairy industry's recommendations; seventeen states produce milk that would be illegal to sell based on somatic cell limits in Europe.

insulin-like growth factor-I Kahan, Z et al., Elevated levels of circulating insulin-like growth factor-I, IGF-binding globulin-3 and testosterone predict hormone-dependent breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a case-control study. Int J Oncol. 2006 Jul;29(1):193-200. Pacher, M. et al., Impact of constitutive IGF1/IGF2 stimulation on the transcriptional program of human breast cancer cells. Carcinogenesis. 2006 Jun 14 - Does anyone have numbers that the concentrations present in milk are relevant for those used in this study?

Calcium and prostate cancer Chan, J.M., Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Oct;74(4):549-54. (disputed publication). The abstract shows that there were two comments on this article, which suggests that the results are disputed. Does anyone have access to the comments?

Milk and calcium excretion - I'm removing this point. None of the references mentions diary, except for one (Feskanich et al) that only claims that high calcium-intake alone does not prevent (rather than cause) osteoporosis, which seems in line with what is known about osteoporosis.

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

Consumption of milk is reported to increase the risk of bone fractures, due to animal protein's effect on intensifying urinary calcium excretion. It is because of this that milk may in fact contribute to osteoporosis, rather than preventing it as is commonly thought ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8].

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

A study published in June 2005 of 9- to 14-year-old children found that children who reported drinking the most glasses of milk per day gained the most weight. However overall calorie intake was a better predictor of weight gain. Researchers were surprised by their conclusion that weight gain was associated with dietary calcium and low-fat or skim milk, but not dairy fat. A limitation of this study was that it was based on self-reported dietary intake, a method which can be inaccurate even when administered to adults ^[9] ^[10]

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Factual accuracy

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

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

[edit] GA Collaboration

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

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

[edit] Spoiled milk

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

[edit] processing section

Most dairies are local companies,

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

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

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

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

[edit] Churning Milk

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

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

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

[edit] Vandalism?

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMilk_f846.html"