Talk:Milk/Archive 2006-2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

Impacts of Milk

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

Is it not very bad science and journalism to claim on one hand that most people worldwide are lactose intolerant and then to spend so much time discussing potential health benefits for humans (supposedly only for those who are the exception and can digest lactose into adulthood). There is obviously no health need for adult mammals of any species so why quarrel over it so much? The American Dietic Organization which represents the LARGEST group of independent nutritionist claims that adult humans do NOT require milk for health.
Obviously no food is required for one's health. Any single food can be eliminated from one's diet so long as one was mindful to compensate for whatever nutrients that the eliminated foodstuff provided. The saturated fat and cholesterol in fatted milks certainly would contribute to the risk factors for heart disease and stroke; however, fat-free and skim milks would not pose such risks. Skim milk represents an excellent low-fat source of protein, calcium, potassium and riboflavin for lactose-tolerant individuals.
Most of the anti-milk campaigning only posits tentative links and attempts to imply causal connections which haven't been empirically proven. This is not to say that milk is safe, simply that there is insufficient evidence to declare it unsafe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tymothy (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 March 2007.


MILK Linked to OVARIAN CANCER

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


  • The so-called "Physician's Committee For Responsible Medicine", which produced the article you cite above, is not a physicians' group as its name implies; it is a subsidiary of PETA created to scare people into veganism by spreading medical misinformation. This group has been strongly condemned by the American Medical Association. Their stuff is pure propaganda and does does not belong on Wikipedia - at least not without extensive rebuttals from orthodox medicine. See [1] or [2] for more information. Securiger 14:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry but attempting to discredit the PCRM group by using a paper written by Consumer Freedom (mainly sponsored by the Fast Food Industry) and by linking it to PETA is logically contradicting. (It makes sense that PETA would support any health advisers that promote vegetarianism – just as the meat industry would support Atkins like advisors who promote heavy meat eating.) Besides – who do you rather trust for health advice: McDonald’s or say the vegetarian Dr Benjamin Spock or the late Carl Sagan (also vegetarian) or the most successful athlete in history Carl Lewis (strict vegetarian)? The fact is the American Dietic Organizations claims the humans can live healthy lives without milk. Is it further a mere coincidence that the most successful long-distance sportsman, 6 times ironman winner Dave Scot, AND the most successful track-athlete, Carl Lewis with 9 gold medals, have ON PURPOSE NOT consumed any milk products? Finally – does anybody remember the famous Arnold Schwarzenegger quote from the movie Pumpin Iron: "Milk is for babies"?
  • Damn, I admire securiger's mastery of rebuttal info. I will assume Drygrain's proposal was naive rather than disingenuous and flesh out the point. PETA is a poor source for accurate health info because they have made it quite clear by publications, public statements, and public actions, that their primary purpose is indeed ethical-- to persuade people to stop using animals. Like many, if not most, self-righteous groups with a moral message, they pick and choose the facts to present to support their cause. At a minimum, their dishonesty lies in not presenting the balance of the evidence or contradictory evidence. If we are less charitable, we might suspect that they would not let a little thing like evidence get in the way of a persuasive argument. For instance, a quick look at one of items in the page link supplied by Drygrain illustrates both exaggeration to the point of dishonesty and a failure to acknowledge contradictory evidence. In section "4. Diabetes", three assertions are made:
    • Insulin-dependent diabetes (Type I or childhood-onset) is linked to consumption of dairy products. The wording suggests a causal link, doesn't it? It is a weak statistical link between cow milk use in the first 4 months of life, far from causal, inconsistently confirmed. The two references were studies published in 1990 and 1992, but conspicuously absent are several more recent studies which failed to confirm a strong correlation.
    • Epidemiological studies of various countries show a strong correlation between the use of dairy products and the incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes. IDDM occurs in about 1 in 400 children. If a child is fed primarily a cow milk formula before age 4 months instead of nursing, the child's risk rises to about 1 in 300.
Correlation does not imply causation. The children who receive cow milk formulas instead of being breast-fed were not randomly assigned, a number of socio-economic factors could account for why the observed children developed IDDM. Yes, it's fair to conclude that children who are consuming cow's milk formulas are going to develop IDDM, but you can't conclude that giving a child cow's milk formula will increase his risk of IDDM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymothy (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 March 2007
    • Researchers in 1992 found that a specific dairy protein sparks an auto-immune reaction, which is believed to be what destroys the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. No they didn't-- they speculated that this might be the mechanism if the causal association is true.
Just to give you a sense of the lack of straightforwardness on this issue, evidence in recent years suggests (1) a slow rise in incidence of IDDM in young children has been occurring in the US over the last 30 years, during which the incidence of early breastfeeding has been rising and milk consumption falling, and (2) that early vitamin D deficiency is associated with a several fold higher risk of diabetes later in childhood (the reader should realize that cow milk is the primary source of vitamin D in the first few years of life). If you want a more balanced recent review of the evidence, try O Vaarala, Environmental causes: dietary causes. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America (2004) 33:17-26. My suspicion is that the other PETA "medical science" claims will not withstand critical scrutiny any better. Alteripse 00:54, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I think there should be some discussion of the impacts of milk production and consumption. I agree that PETA et.al. often abuse the facts, but the FDA and the AMA have their own agendas also. I'd emphasize the enormous environmental impacts of dairy production, and look for some more balanced materials to refer to. --NealMcB 18:22, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
Regardless of the hijinks of the people over at PETA, there seems to be some noise going on the medical establishment about the health benefits of milk. I came across some discussion of the late Frank Oski's book, Don't drink your milk. Considering his former position at Johns Hopkins University Oski seems to have been established in the medical profession. Does anyone know anything about this guy? Also, I'm curious about milk and calcium. Some people say that the large amounts of protein in cow milk cancels out the positive effect of calcium and one of the studies they cite is one on bone fractures. You can check PubMed or [AJPH] for the abstract with the title, "Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study". Shawnb 14:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

Agreed - I suggest a section on controversy or backlash or something, presenting both this broad philosophical rejection of the ingestion of cow's milk and also addressing the studies that PETA quotes. It would be good to put them up, I think, if for no other reason that to rebut them all. We could quote the studies and say 'the philosophical argument remains,' for example. LockeShocke 02:40, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
That "philosophy of milk" would only be reasonable to include in describing why certain individuals avoid drinking milk. How do you define natural, and are all things unnatural dangerous? Humans do a lot of things that others certainly don't, we've wiped out certain bacteria by developing vaccines and drugs, we make tofu, we've domesticated some mammals for their flesh, others to keep us company. We construct machines which we use soley to exhaust ourselves on, we've determined our own dietary needs and attempt to follow stringent plans to fulfill all of these needs. Just because something is "unnatural", does it necessarily make it bad? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tymothy (talk • contribs) 02:19, 13 March 2007.

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

Thanks for noticing that. If you go to the acne article on wikipedia, they mention that there is no correlation between acne and specific food The acne article is very well done in my opinion and I think this article should pull out that assertion.
Then there is the calcium issue. Boy, I have never heard someone say milk lead to bone issues. I don't mean to be rude, but someone is smoking something funny here. Calcium is an inorganic element, and I find it hard to believe there is any difference between milk calcium and plant calcium. I could have seriously slept in my chemistry class, but I doubt that is the case.
Calcium is an alkali metal and I don't think you'd like to ingest it in this form. This leaves you with different choices of calcium salts, some of which are better absorbed than others. The calcium ions in cow's milk are poorly absorbed (about 30%), partly because of the high phosphate content, partly because they are bound to casein. The calcium ions in vegetables are typically better absorbed (50-60%). This does not support claims that milk actually harms bones. These claims are more likely based on:
  • High content of acid-forming protein.
  • High content (particularily in processed lean milk) of retinol.
  • And, compared to some other calcium sources, the low content of Vitamin K.
Most frequently cited in support of these arguments is the Nurses' Health Study ([[3]]), in which milk consumption and risk of hip fracture were positively correlated (that is, the more milk the women consumed, the higher their risk of fracture). The problem is that, particularily in people, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The one thing that everyone but the most optimistic advocates of cow's milk agrees on, is that this (the largest study so far that examined, among many other things, the correlation between milk consumption and fracture risk in women) does not provide much evidence for the notion that cow's milk actually protects against bone loss. For more information on this point of view, see [4]. Aragorn2 19:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Finally most of the critism have to do with calcium. Where not join them into one point instead of making a long chain of critism? Or is there any difference between these points?
  • Some milk is rich in saturated fat, which studies have linked to increased risk of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease. Low-fat and non-fat forms of milk may mitigate any such risk.
  • Critics dispute the claim that drinking large amounts of milk can reduce the risk of bone fractures, especially in the elderly. Studies have failed to associate high calcium intakes with lower risk of hip and forearm fractures in men[5] or women[6].
  • Critics of milk claim that plant-based sources of calcium are preferable, on the grounds that animal proteins in milk causes leaching or excretion of calcium from bones.[7] Such critics refute the claim that milk prevents osteoporosis and make the counterclaim that milk, in fact, contributes to that disease.
  • Critics also make the claim that the protein content of cow’s milk can act to block the absorption of calcium and cause the human body to produce antibodies that are believed to damage the pancreas, leading to the development of type 1 diabetes.
  • A study suggests a correlation between high calcium intake and prostate cancer.[8]. There is no evidence that any such problem is specific to milk. A review published by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research states that at least 11 human population studies have linked dairy product consumption and prostate cancer.
  • Scientific evidence has also been unable to support the claim that the consumption of cow’s milk as a source of calcium reduces the risk of osteoporosis. On the contrary, epidemiological research has linked the countries with the highest dairy consumption rates (for example, the United States, Sweden and Finland) to the incidence of osteoporosis. But no studies have shown the same in New Zealand, which has the highest per capita consumption.
Six point, I would that is being hopelessly redudant. Some of these points need to be prunned asap.

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

Pasturisation & UHT

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

It was explained to me that milk is almost always pasteurized. If the customer is close to the cows, this is usually sufficient. If the milk is expected to be warehoused, it will be ultra-pasteurized. This uses higher temperatures and makes a product that is more shelf-stable. The milk has been 'cooked' more, changing the taste somewhat.
Milk from national chains is often ultra pasteurized. For example, I can purchase Pasteurized Horizon Organic Milk from my local Safeway store. However, at the Super Target store in the same city, the product is Ultra-pasteurized. At my Safeway store, the cream products are also ultra-pasteurized, and it lasts MUCH longer than the pasteurized product from the dairy a few miles away.
Finally, although it wasn't described as 'UHT' to me, it might be the same as aseptic milk. On the other hand, this might be JBellis's "Sterilised". It is relatively rare in the US. I've got a little box of it in front of me right now in a TetraPak TetraBrik package (juice box), intended as a convenience food to be paired with single-serving cereal bowls. The only thing it says about the process is small text on the side of the box, "This modern process with ultra high temperature pasteurization and package maintains the milk fresh and natural for several months without refrigeration." Products like Yoohoo also use aseptic milk, and there was a discussion on Everything2.com about "Milk in Bags" being aseptic milk provided by the govermnent. --Mdwyer 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have two cartons of Tesco's own brand UHT milk in my cupboard. I've had them since September (2005 assumed), and the best-before date is 24 June 06. They're my emergency supply, and I find this milk is slightly watery and best refrigerated (having it warm and straight from the carton is a little insipid) but I don't notice any taste difference, but that may be because I usually eat it with cereal. Lady BlahDeBlah 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought it tasted sweeter than regular milk -- sort of like how scalded milk tastes. I did drink it warm out of the box, though, so it could be exactly as you describe. Taste is SO subjective! I've never seen UHT milk in stores in Western America. I think we would use dry milk in cases where you would use UHT. I was finally able to find my UHT milk in an office supplies catalog!! Ewww... --Mdwyer 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

milksucks?

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

The point of Wikipedia is not to evaluate the sides of an arugment and define truth, but to present both. PETA does have an agenda, but they manipulate data no more than industry lobbying groups. They are a vocal public critic of the dairy and meat industries and it is therefore important that they be represented here in some form. You may wish to rewrite portions of the article relating to this, and you are welcome to do so. Kellen T 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
PETA has more than an agenda like industry entities. They actively support the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The ALF is labeled a domestic terrorist organization by the FBI, responsible for many firebombings of laboratories. Not exactly the kinds of people that have any credibility. 66.59.114.110 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That is tangential. PETA's endorsement of any controversial group does not lessen the influence and presence PETA has in regards to this issue. PETA's affiliations are irrelevant in general - PETA is a vocal opponent of milk/dairy products and as such deserves to be at least mentioned, even in passing, in an article about the product. You couldn't write an article about, for example, the history of the American meat industry without once noting Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" simply because it doesn't portray the topic in a favorable light. It is possible to objectively mention PETA, without showing approval OR disapproval of their actions. For instance, simply say "some organizations, such as PETA, are known for their propagation of the negative effects of dairy consumption" - maybe in even more neutral wording. If PETA were sensationally pro-dairy (and the website were milkrocks.com), would this argument even be present? 69.116.227.205 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Milk Flavourings

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


Other animals' milk used for human consumption?

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

I too came looking for goat milk or sheep milk (I say "goat's milk" and "sheep's milk", by analogy to "cow's milk" and "mother's milk", but I came from the tzatziki article, which uses the non-possessive construction. Sorry I can't add anything useful on this topic. However, what exercises me is the anthropocentric assertion in the article (reiterated in the list at the top of this talk page) that humans are the only animals that drink milk after the nursing stage of infancy, and the only ones that drink the milk of other species. This is patent nonsense. Many cats routinely drink milk, usually in my experience cow's milk but I suppose they would drink the milk of other species if they had access to it. Just as with many humans, cow's milk causes digestive problems for many cats, but to say that (given access) they don't drink it is just silly. --Haruo 09:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my apologies. I was writing from memory after having read my source (McGee's On Food and Cooking) a few hours earlier, and I seem to have inflated the claim: he says (p 14)
In the animal world, humans are exceptional for consuming milk of any kind after they have started eating solid food.
My bad. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you parenthetically undermined your own argument - you specified that cats drink milk when "given access." Yes, domesticated cats drink milk when they are given milk to drink, but do cats in the wild do the same thing? I think the basis of the argument is the whole "natural" factor - other animals do not typically, of their own instinct or will or whatnot, drink milk of other species, whereas humans do this regularly. Whether or not they will do it when presented with milk in a bowl is beside the point. When viewed that way, the claim is sound. 69.116.227.205 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm in agreement, Haruo; The lead is improved without that sentence. (I wasn't the one who put the sentence back in last time). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
But as a note -- Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking is I believe an extremely reliable source; no need to impugn it by association with flat-earthers, please! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Snake milk?

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

Snakes, not being mammals, don't have milk. I think the extraction of venom from snakes is sometimes called "milking". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Bunchofgrapes is correct. The process of extracting venom from posionous snakes is often referred to as "milking" the snake. I wouldn't pour any of it in your coffee, though. User:Mechafox 7 August 2006

Composition and nutrition

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

The secton is (partly) about "nutrition" -- that generally means nutrition to humans. And humans rarely if ever consume whale milk. It's a very unusual milk. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Generally. However, the article begins describing milk, well, in general. There is no indication that the article places enphasis on human consumed milks until later. The C & N section begins The composition of milk differs widely between species. Again, no emphasis on human consumed milk. Maybe the section could be rewritten to add this emphasis? The whale milk info is good where it is. Prometheus-X303- 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the word milk...

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

I don't believe so. I beleive that it came from an old celtic word, "Maelkeng", which was the udder of a cow. Improper translations led to the act of "Milking" and then to the noun itself, "Milk".
P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster seems pretty certain that 'milk' comes from Old High German: Middle English, from Old English meolc, milc; akin to Old High German miluh milk, Old English melcan to milk. Ashmoo 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting; I've never seen that particular derivation before. Sehr intressant. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've double checked (MW is not always correct) and Etymology Online seems to agree with the Saxon origin. Ashmoo 01:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Added some information

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

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

Side-effects?

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

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

Moo Juice?

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

That's "udder" nonsense.

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

Bagged in Canada

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

Apparently still common in Ontario[10]. Rmhermen 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Bagged milk is incredibly common in Ontario, especially Kingston. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Bagged milk seems to be common in Ontario in general, at least central/south/east. It is not in Manitoba or anywhere out west AFAIK, where it is found in either 250 ml to 2 litre cartons and jugs, and 4 litre jugs. Halogenated 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Bagged milk seems to be the most common in southern ontario, however cartons and jugs are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.115.79 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Clarification Needed

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

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

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

"In Scotland"

Removed this paragraph added by anonymous contributor user:155.136.80.2

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

White blood cells/ Somatic cells / pus

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

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

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

Here are two good, seemingly neutral articles on the subject. The official Google answers are very detailed, but also misleading, based primarily on official U.S. and dairy industry numbers; but look at the answers given by "spectrum69-ga" at the bottom of the first page, and "hersolutions4u-ga" on the second page. Both list, once again, seemingly neutral sources for their conclusions: [11] [12] Hope this helps to aid in your understanding of the subject. Kyle Key 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The term pus according to wikipedia clearly states that it is composed of somatic cells and other components. The presence of somatic cells alone (also wrong term to really be applied, many cells in the body are somatic), or more correctly white blood cells or phagocytes, are not sufficient to use the term, pus. These cells circulate throughout your bloodstream - does that make your blood pus? The citation I removed is clearly a partisan web site with no credibility. Use proper citations or don't post the information. Read up on what constitutes a proper wiki citation. Halogenated (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I should add that just because someone makes these claims and it is under the heading "Controversy" does not mean anything should go up. Much of this section does not conform to the NPOV mandate, and simply represents the opinions of some very fringe groups and individuals. Otherwise all wikipedia will end up being is a series of tabloid articles. If there is a good source, and it is written from a NPOV, then it should eb put up. Otherwise it simply makes the article a WP:SOAP and will not meet the everyday good article standing.Halogenated (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that "milk containing 400 million pus cells per litre can be sold legally for human consumption", that "one teaspoonful of milk could contain up to two million pus cells" and that their can be "Up to 100 million pus cells in every glass" [1] [2]. See also Viva!s MilkMyths, PETA's MilkSucks and NotMilk Robert C Prenic (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
All of which are not credible or suitable references [3]. Open a biology text, you will never see the words "pus cell", or a notation of "drops of pus" anywhere, because it doesn't exist. Besides, it's irrelevant. White blood cells are no more problematic to consume than RBC or plant cells. It's mostly protein and lipids. Statements like the above are strictly scare tactics and based on the "ick" factor, and using words like pus are weasel words. Bone marrow is chalk-full of "pus", and is the source of all immune cells. It makes great soup. Halogenated (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Freezing point and boiling point

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

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

Article split

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

Anti-milk POV

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

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

Milk contains varying levels of white blood cells, depending upon the health of the source animals; controversy surrounds whether these are simply somatic cells or, in an alternate form, pus [4]. In the United States, one to seven drops of these cells are in every eight-ounce glass of milk, varying by state, according to guidelines set up by the Food and Drug Administration and statistics reported by the dairy industry [5]. Only one state out of all fifty, Hawaii, has a cell count lower than the dairy industry's recommendations; seventeen states produce milk that would be illegal to sell based on somatic cell limits in Europe.

  • 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 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].

  • 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 [12] [13]

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

(1) I added at least the last two of those claims [weight gain and calcium excretion - Han-Kwang]. My intention was to report the criticisms of milk as described by the critics, since I personally had neither the time nor the expertise to judge their validity. I added the verifiable claims that I could find from anti-milk organizations, not to advance any POV but to report the verfiable fact that critics were making those claims. If the summaries weren't accurate representations of the studies' conclusions, it was because of my lack of knowledge rather than a lack of neutrality.
(2) I think your criticisms above are probably well-placed. But you removed some studies because they don't prove that milk has any harmful effects, whereas I think they were added because they were used by critics to argue that milk might be harmful; such arguments might be flawed, but they are verifiable. As you say, some of the criticisms "could be balanced by a vast number of publications", so wouldn't it be better to do that by adding studies with contradictory evidence? Wmahan. 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factual accuracy

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

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

GA Collaboration

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

The to-do list looks more like a suggestion board, what with all the "What if we...." sentences :/. However, there do seem to be several sentences in the article with weird prose and I think I spotted a run-on or two, but they might be gramatically correct.... Homestarmy 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The to-do list seems hijacked by the anti-milk crowd. It also needs updating to reflect the current state of the article, e.g. there's nothing about calves being a useless byproduct now. Kjetilho 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiled milk

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

processing section

Most dairies are local companies,

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

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

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

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

Churning Milk

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

See Butter: "In African and Asian developing nations, butter is traditionally made from sour milk rather than cream. It can take several hours of churning to produce workable butter grains from fermented milk.<ref>Crawford et al, part B, section III, ch. 1: Butter. Retrieved 28 November 2005.</ref>" —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. I copied part of that sentence from the Butter article and added it to the Milk in language and culture section. --Midnightcomm 03:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

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

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

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)[14]

  • Here is one good study that gives evidence to the contrary: [15]. 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)[16]
      • 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)

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. [[17]], [[18]], and [[19]] 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)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.