Talk:Milk/Archive 1

message: That bottom paragraph ("Ethical Issues") needs to be rewritten, not because of POV concerns, but because it is terribly done, and the article would be better without such weak writing. It's filled with the usual journalistic weasle wording: "many people", "some people consider", "some of the calves", "some people also believe", "some also ohject." All of these are lazy and not very helpful to the reader. Who are these "some" people and are they just the fringe, like the "some people" that don't believe the moon landing happened or more mainstream like the "some people" who believe in the abiotic genesis of oil -- still a minority, but not entirely ignored.
The rest of the article is well written, and that terrible paragraph really stands out, as if tacked on. And before anybody complains about a drive by deletion by somebody with only a single minor edit in their history, note I've been doing this for much longer, but just finally decided to get an account.
Here is the paragraph: "Many people concerned about animal welfare (especially vegans) do not drink milk. An increasing number of dairy cows are being raised on factory farms, which some people consider cruel. On many farms, the calves are separated from their mothers within days of birth to prevent the calf from drinking the milk so that humans can drink it instead. Some of the calves born by dairy cows are raised in crates for veal and are slaughtered three to eighteen weeks later. On many farms, once a dairy cow's milk production decreases, she is also slaughtered at an age that is a fraction of her natural lifespan. Some people also believe that the use of bovine growth hormone to increase milk production in cows is unethical. For these reasons, either in an attempt to reduce animal suffering or to prevent animals from being killed, some people choose to not consume milk. Some also object to drinking milk for environmental reasons."
To 24.26.131.252, I see that you wrote the section and that you are also active in the vegan areas of the site. Please don't take this as an attack on your views (I was a strict veg for ten years), but bad writing makes me cry. --Jjayson 06:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the bottom paragraph 

message: I have removed a link to a 'milk bottle news' site twice.  While the site is somewhat related to milk, the collection of milk bottles really adds nothing to this article.  I suggest an article on milk bottles be started and the link posted there.  Uriah923 14:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can start it here, then. Andy Mabbett 16:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milk bottle news 

message: A reference was removed without explanation.  It has been re-added, as it was used to add content to the article on August 19, 2005.  Per Wikipedia policy, a reference must be provided when information is "gleaned from an external souce."  As that is the case here, to remove the reference would put the article in copyright violation.  Uriah923 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference re-added 

message: The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here.  Uriah923 06:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of ON content and quality of reference 

message: I suggest that the list of milk brands isn't central to the article and should be moved to a seperate article. Any comment?--JBellis 20:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It was talked about last year but nothing was done. I'll do it now. Ashmoo 03:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Brands 

message: I particularly like the (brief) passage that compares Human milk and Cow's milk.  This information, however, is found under the heading of rdST...seems (vastly) out of place to me.  I'd like to see it in it's own section, comparing the nutrition information to the other variations of milk (goats, coconut's etc.).  Kingerik 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison Information 

message: Is it free calcium ions, or something imbedded in proteins that has to be broken down, or some kind of salt/base combination? --211.116.88.76 13:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kind of calcium is in it? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  milksucks? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Milk Flavourings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Composition and nutrition 

message: I added the "History of Cow Milk" and "Animal Milk and vegetarianism" sections. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Added some information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Side-effects? 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's "udder" nonsense.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moo Juice? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Apparently still common in Ontario. Rmhermen 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bagged milk is incredibly common in Ontario, especially Kingston. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bagged in Canada 

message: 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.
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)
thread_title:  "In Scotland" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:   Hope this helps to aid in your understanding of the subject. Kyle Key 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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" http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/campaigns/whitelies/wlreport06.shtml#undesirable http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/shop/whitelies.shtml. See also Viva!s MilkMyths, PETA's MilkSucks and NotMilk  Robert C Prenic (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of which are not credible or suitable references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources.  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)
thread_title:  White blood cells/ Somatic cells / pus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 [].  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)
thread_title:  Freezing point and boiling point 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Collaboration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spoiled milk 

message: :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)
thread_title:  processing section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.Crawford et al, part B, section III, ch. 1: Butter. Retrieved 28 November 2005." —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Churning Milk 

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

message: There are two main forms of the cow's milk protein beta casein known as A1 and A2 beta casein.
The A2 beta casein is the original form of beta casein produced by cows.
The A1 form appeared in dairy cattle and was spread throughout dairy herds across Europe due to natural genetic mutation for hundreds or thousand years.
It has become the common form of beta casein in many breeds of cows.
Traditional cattle breeds such as the zebu, and related animals such as the water buffalo and yak all still only produce the A2 type of beta casein.
Generally the Guernsey breed of cattle have the highest frequency of the A2 gene, and thus Guernsey herds produce milk with high levels of A2 type beta casein.
a2 Milk™ produced in Australia may provide protection from a range of intolerance responses to cow's milk protein and may assist digestive wellbeing. 
There are over 100 scientific studies to support the A2 story.
References:
http://www.a2australia.com.au
http://www.a2australia.com.au/scientific-resources/a1-and-a2-beta-casein.php
(You need to agree with terms)
Brainsling (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Wikipedia is not for advertising your company or orginisation. Also, references to support it should usually be independant of the subject. Also, that text is a copyright violation of a2Australia Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add this information: A1 and A2 beta casein in cow's milk 

message: Since it involves inevitable biology, it doesn't seem like it can be subject to legal issues and such. The section could do with a better name, be split or be merged into some of the other ones. mechamind90 02:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible rename of "Controversy" 

message: A sentence reads "The Boulder, Colorado school district banned flavored milk in 2009 and instead installed a dispenser that keeps the milk colder." This is all well and good and probably a real good idea, but it is one district out of about 1000 in the US. And this is an article about Milk, worldwide. It seems inordinate to mention it at all here. Maybe "Education in Colorado" or "Health in Colorado" but not here until at least an entire state does this and a large state at that IMO. Student7 (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single instance of replacement 

message: Hey whoever is reading this sorry I know I'm probably doing this wrong but I noticed there is a typo under "controversy". It should say "it is" at the end of the first paragraph but it says "is it" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.254 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: im not sure if im doing this right... but in controversy at one point it says "is it" but should say "it is"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.29.22 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text error 

message: In the table listing the nutritional content of different milks, Ca concentration was given in IU (international units). This also is the unit used in the cited source. However, there is no such thing as an IU of calcium. Calcium content is measured directly in units of mass, usually mg. This appears to be a typographical error in the source document that was copied in the table. I have corrected the table, and added a link to the USDA nutritional database, which is a better source in any case.Struvite (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units of Ca in milk 

message: Why is there a picture of breast milk?
Although labelled just "Milk", I believe the article to concentrate on cow's milk, so what's the need in the picture?
Maybe it should go in Breast Milk. 87.102.126.12 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about milk in general, which is of course produced by all female mammals, including humans.  It's therefore quite right that a variety of milk types is shown, and human milk is after all something with which most readers have a connection.  Cow's milk forms a large part of the article not because it's the only subject, but because a large proportion of farmed milk is produced from cattle.  Richard New Forest (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast milk 

message: Someone added a lengthy blurb on a Harvard study suggesting milk could prevent Diabetes II. This did not seem connected to the other studies, thought there was a dead link in the paragraph above that could be helped out by this info. It seems to be one study only with its own peculiar results, not directly confirmed by other researchers. Seems to be a lot of that here. Anyway, it seemed WP:UNDUE since not confirmed generally by the scientific community, and possibly WP:SPAM for the particular report since there were a bunch of other additions to various articles performed in a less than npov manner. The report may be valid, but it probably doesn't deserve more than one or two sentences. The other studies telling how wonderful (or bad) milk is, probably need to be deleted if unsupported by research after (say) five years. There are pov lobbies out there on both sides. Student7 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Student7, while I certainly do appreciate your viewpoint and do agree wholeheartedly that we must watch for pov lobbies, I feel that this study is important for this article.  This was a large, long-term study and the five-times-over reduction in diabetes was remarkable. I would need to read the paper again, but I believe that the study was looking for cardiovascular effects and the diabetes connection just happened to stand out.  I have seen it suggested on some talk pages that we need to dumb information down since readers are unable to make up their own minds about information presented.  However, I tend to feel that we cheat the many intelligent wikipedia readers when we go too far with that.  Wikipedia is much more than the few words we write here, most of the information is in the links provided.  I read the references, and I feel that it is fair to assume that other intelligent readers do as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another diabetes study 

message: Seems mostly opaque to me, at least in its natural form. Skim milk is more translucent. Maybe we should just say it's a white fluid. ScienceApe (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Gandydancer (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milk is translucent? 

message: Colombia sells milk in 1 liter plastic bags
111.92.82.62 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -Atmoz (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 111.92.82.62, 10 February 2011 

message: "The enzyme needed to digest lactose, lactase, reaches its highest levels in the small intestines after birth and then begins a slow decline unless milk is consumed regularly."
The latter statement (the prevention of the decline in lactase expression by means of milk consumption) has been never verified and the book given as reference is unreliable. The book is neither a scientific article nor a textbook, simply a popular book (McGee, Harold (2004) [1984]. "Milk and Dairy Products". On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen (2nd ed.). New York: Scribner. pp. 7–67. ). Eyesighter (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth about regulation of lactase expression 

message: there is a section of this article that talks about a colorado school getting rid of flavored milk and instead installing a dispenser to keep the milk colder.  what does colder milk have to do with flavored milk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.171.104 (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The price of tea in china 

message: I thought Yakult was sold internationally? In any case, isn't it made by a Japanese company?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.168 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilian Yakult? 

message: One of the illustrations in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuvola_milk_carton.svg) is amateurish and doesn't contribute significantly to understanding the article. It's also misleading, as the image shows a half-gallon carton of milk while its caption states that such cartons are common in U.S. schools. I've never seen children knocking back half-gallons during lunchtime. - 67.202.81.221 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I agree completely. The caption was incorrect and the drawing superfluous. I deleted the image, as it did not pertain to the section it appeared in and doesn't seem useful to add anything significant to any other area of the article either.  duff 18:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible Drawing 

message: Could we remove the word 'adversely' from the last sentence in the Processing->Pasteurization section?  The necessary information is conveyed without it, and it seems POV to me.
90.203.126.221 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Deli nk (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 90.203.126.221, 9 July 2011 

message: This bit strikes me as odd:
The main reasons for the decline of UK home deliveries by milkmen are household refrigerators (which lessen the need for daily milk deliveries) and private car usage (which has increased supermarket shopping). In 1996, more than 2.5 billion liters of milk were still being delivered by milkmen, but by 2006 only 637 million liters (13% of milk consumed) was delivered by some 9,500 milkmen.
But both car and fridge ownership have been widespread for a darnsight more than the last 15 years. Are they really the reasons for milk rounds drying up?
I don't have refs to hand but surely increased aggressive selling practices by supermarkets have made the alternative more competitive? Add in more people living alone or everyone in a home working and the payment system became more awkward. I also recall a mess in the 1990s when some dairies switched their business practices to make milkmen franchisees on their individual rounds and thus unprofitable rounds were no longer subsidised and instead abandoned. This probably contributed to a cycle whereby people who didn't have the option of deliveries at their old address took the habit with them when moving and so further diminished the profitably of the round at their new address. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing UK patterns 

message: "A glass of pasteurized cow milk, consumption of which is prevalent in Western countries"
May kindly be changed to:
"A glass of pasteurized cow milk"
I assure you that we in the eastern countries also do drink Pasteurized Cow Milk :-).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.13.202 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Meets West 

message: I fail to understand why this article is protected? Is this a biography of a living person?
--the Dude or "El Duderino", if you are not into all that brevity thing  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.80.138 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it a protected page? 

message: Norway sells milk in cartons ranging from 0,3 liter to 1 liter and recently 1,5 and 1,75 liter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.114.150 (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Packaging 

message: The first sentence should read "dominates the commercial scene." instead of "dominates the commercial scence.".
178.250.213.149 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected, thank you Gioto (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in "Sources Of Milk" section 

message: This section cites non-scholarly sources when discussing material of a scientific nature, and thus potentially provides misleading information. I would suggest limiting the first paragraph to the first two sentences, removing the entire discussion of IGF-1 unless more credible sources can be found (and these are hard to come by on this subject).
Erh2103 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I deleted it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit of section on bovine growth hormone supplementation (under "Controversy") 

message: In the Nutrition and health section, can someone please remove the incorrect information about guinea pig milk? It doesn'd have a fat content of 46%; there's nothing remarkable about guinea pig milk in that respect. There are a lot of scientific studies for which some poor soul had to milk guinea pigs in order to find out it has fairly average fat content, like this one
Stairvole (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request - remove false statement about guinea pig milk 

message: The first sentence may need to be re-written, as milk does not necessarily come from animal sources  - there are plant sources, such as soya milk or coconut milk. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can define (limit) the article anyway we like. Rather than have hundreds of substitutes discussed in an article that is basically about mammalian milk (which others are trying to imitate), it would seem reasonable to place these other items in other (another) article, like "milk substitutes." Speaking of "soy milk" would make no sense, if mammalian milk didn't exist as a basis. And most people drink mammalian milk, not substitutes. In here, I think the distraction on non-mammalian milk would be WP:UNDUE. In another article (which can be "seen also" from here), fine. Student7 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence 

message: The interwiki link to Malagasy Wikipedia should be mg:Ronono instead the current mg:乳. I cannot change it because the page is protected. Regards. --95.20.71.46 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong interwiki link 

message: This study is from Harvard university www.naturalnews.com/035081_pasteurized_milk_cancer_dairy.html 
I would have added it myself, but since wikipedia has turned into a editorial dictatorship i'm leaving it here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 08:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not appear to be a WP:Reliable source. Rmhermen (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The material suggests that cancer can be caused by drinking milk from "pregnant cows." A problem - lactating cows can be defined as "cows who have given birth." Cows who are pregnant do not normally lactate. At all. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vital article about how cow milk is linked to cancer and about the american 2012 farm bill 

message: In the introduction of the article is says:  "Milk derived from cattle species is an important food."  That can be debated and is very biased.  Much of the rest of this article also has a pro-animal milk consumption bias.  I would like to request that statement to be reworded or removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankster200277 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that any food produced from an animal deliberately domesticated 10,000 years ago would usually qualify as "important." That would include eggs, pork, poultry, lamb, geese, beef,...and milk. It's okay to disagree with it and document lactaid intolerance or whatever, but "important"? I don't think that can be successfully debated. Quantity consumed has to be taken into consideration. I know that chicken and pork are right on up there. Not sure just how high milk still is. I know dairy states in the US produce more milk than they ever have in history. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: There are several articles on milk packaging (e.g., square milk jug and milk bottle), and the "packaging" section here is long and rambling. Plus, milk jug redirects to milk which isn't great. Milk packaging needs its own page. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needed: Milk packaging 

message: I assume this article was written by non-native english speakers.  Could someone fix the grammar errors and remove the silly statements. 68.228.244.85 (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar is bad 

message: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/mar/dairy.htm
Quite a lot of info on there not found on the Milk page...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.144.154 (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That page wouldn't pass the reliable sources criteria. Rmhermen (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information to be added to Milk 

message: Carbohydrates=sugars=lactose ; as far as milk is concerned. Then why are they listed saperately. Can someone correct it ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.33.208 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition data error! 

message: This article fails to really show both sides of the milk controversy. 
It trivialises the growing contention, amongst health professionals, that milk is actually not good for the body. It also fails to note the bias in many articles claiming that milk is good for you- often funded by companies looking to make a buck (e.g. the dairy industry).
Another failing of this article is the ethical section. It is very short, trivialises the issues and does not discuss some of the issues in full - e.g. the rape of cows every 12-16 months. 
I have completed a Bachelor of Science in Nutrition Therapy and have done research into this topic and I feel that more facts should be explored in this page. 
I will admit that I am vegan, but this just a result of the information that I have looked into and not something that makes the facts biased. 
Just very FEW of the many sources of relevant information for this article can be found here: 
http://www.pcrm.org/health/health-topics/calcium-and-strong-bones
http://www.vegetarianvictoria.org.au/cms/infosheets/2veggoveganfaqs.pdf
http://www.notmilk.com/ 
http://www.livestrong.com/article/248912-foods-that-leach-calcium/
http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/dairy-calcium-myth.php
 
I hope that this is taken seriously, as many people come to Wikipedia for information. This is especially relevant to parents and young children. I would hate for children to grow up without all the information relevant to their health and that of their children down the line. 
Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryblossomcomputer (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find any sources that would be considered adequate per WP standards? Gandydancer (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equality of information 

message: This article could make it a lot clearer that there are some sources of milk which would be accessible to practitioners of veganism. When it talks about sources of milk, it tends to mention animal sources, but it does not clarify that some milk sources are from plants, such as rice milk or soya milk. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it makes the opposite clear - that milk comes from mammals. There are substitutes for everything I suppose, but doesn't mean it should be in the article. Student7 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This information does not clarify that vegan sources of milk are available 

message: The table listed under the heading Types of Consumption and under the sub-title Food product for Humans has an incorrect title. The title of the table currently reads Top ten per capita cow's milk and cow's milk products consumers in 2006, however, the source of that data has entitled the table Per Capita Consumption of Milk and Milk Products in Various Countries. This is significant because the way the title reads right now implies that Canada is among the top ten countries in terms of per capita milk consumption. However, in actuality, it is just amoung the top ten in the list that Professor Doug Goff has provided on his website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DairyQueen1989 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error to chart under Types of Consumption 

message: I have never ever seen milk in a glass bottle in modern Sweden, as stated in the article. We did have them up to perhaps the 1960s, but that is now long ago ... Please change that in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.183.154 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milk in Sweden 

message: mjölk det är gött det ! av issabell THA GS
217.140.112.221 (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Not an edit request. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 21 January 2013 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.dairyco.org.uk/talking-to-schools-consumers/providing-school-milk/the-history-of-milk/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The claim that dolphins are a milk source used by humans has norefernce. Shouldn't it need one? If no one defends that claim, I think dolphins should be removed from the list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.172.101 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolphin milk source 

message: In the Milk articles there is the claim to solving malnutrition with milk. But yet statistics show that Lactose Intolerance is 75% worldwide ( 97-100% of African Blacks, 90-100% of Asians, 70-75% of North American Blacks, 70-80% of Mexicans, 60-90% of Mediterraneans, 60-80% of Jewish descent ... etc )
To make milk you need to waste water on crops to feed the cows, you need to waste money on antibiotics to keep them healthy ... how is this a solution to world hunger ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos42ze (talk • contribs) 21:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milk to solve malnutrition in the world ? 75% on the globe are Lactose Intolerant ! 

message: The claim that "Ultraviolet (UV) light from fluorescent lighting can alter the flavor of milk" needs to be backed up with a citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinhermann (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Required - Claim that Light Affects Taste 

message: In the Production Worldwide section, the table shows that the US produces the most amount of milk, while the text right beside it says that India does. 50.155.206.22 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The text says "milk" while the table says "cow milk". There are many water buffalo in India. Is that the difference? Rmhermen (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency between table and text 

message: In the "Production worldwide" section there is a graphic captioned "Milk production and consumption." In this graphic the United States is shown as being a surplus country (red), with Canada being a country with balanced production (green). In the graphic Alaska is indicated with the same colour as the rest of Canada, which is incorrect since Alaska is a US state.
Alaska should match the colour of the continental United States (red), currently it matches the colour of Canada (green).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.128.143 (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milk production and consumption graphic incorrect 

message: In the "Physical and chemical properties of milk" section, the word "principle" is used instead of "principal".
76.15.230.99 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks. Linked in "persistence" article which is interesting in itself, directly due to this suggestion. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling/Grammar 

message: Can someone please change "inhumane" into "cruel". The notion of treating cows "as humans" is somewhat unintendedly funny. --2003:51:AF06:3001:2053:7489:9300:ED66 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhumane treatment of cows 

message: In the packaging section, the units are all different. Sometimes the switch is made to mL when the volume goes below 1L, and sometimes it's written as a decimal in litres. It doesn't look very nice and should be fixed, if only for aesthetic reasons.
-Greg
:No, they should be labelled whatever they are referred to in everyday speech. Rmhermen (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit consistency 

message: This sentence is ambiguous:
The U.S. federal government document Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010[76] recommends consumption of 3 glasses of fat-free or low-fat milk for adults and children 9 and older (less for younger children).
I tried to change it but the article is semi-protected for whatever reason - here is a more clear version (I checked the source for this)
The U.S. federal government document Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010[76] recommends consumption of 3 glasses per day of fat-free or low-fat milk for adults and children 9 and older (less for younger children).
Cheers to anyone that wants to change it. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended consumption 

message: The milk processing graph (English version, the original German is different in that point) states that all cheese is made from whey. This is very likely some error, as it is in fact casein that is the principal compound of cheese (Ricotta, the whey cheese, is the exception).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.157.74 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milk processing graph inaccuracy 

message: An image of a probiotic drink towards the bottom of the Varieties and Products section refers to Yakult as "Brazilian". The text on the bottle is Portuguese, suggesting that it was packaged for distribution in Brazil, but Yakult is an international brand, originating, patented first, and primarily produced in Japan.
Removing "Brazilian" and just leaving it as "Yakult is a probiotic milk-like product..." would be more accurate and remain clear; the name is already a link to a page about the brand. 66.253.206.27 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done better and left the branding and nationality off. — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution of Yakult products