Thanks very much for that, Ginger. Excellent photography and great info. However, I'm still not happy. The message is still not clear enough in my view. My preferred text would be more hard-hitting, along the lines of:
“Regular dairy milk on the market today contains a combination of two main types of beta-casein protein, A2 (the original one) and the more recent A1. Some people have problems with milk containing A1 but can easily tolerate pure A2. So we take our a2 MilkTM from cows specially selected because they naturally produce ONLY the A2 beta-casein. There’s no A1. That’s the difference. Did you know that human mothers’ breast milk is also pure A2?”
This is all verifiable and undisputable, and it's not overly confrontational with mainstream dairy.
Agreed, and I second Snapiti's comment RE emailing your suggestion to a2. Better wording could have been used. The only thing I wonder about is the * note at the bottom "we use ....... to minimise the possibility of our milk containing A1" - basically saying a2TM may (or does) contain some A1, and therefore cant say "There's no A1"....
Lion might say silver plate contains silver, ATM could say sterling silver contains impurities, but why, the consumer learns incrementally and just knows.
It wouldn't be good marketing for ATM to take on the A1/A2 suppliers head on, or to poke them in the eye, it might satisfy some investor's appetite for absolute unwavering clarity but it's not the best way to discretionarily sell milk, positive promotion is the key to sales and marketing.
….. perhaps platinum would have been a better example.
Ginger, I take your point about the risk of saying "there's no A1". It's hard to prevent occasional accidents at the processing works. If that particular phrase were taken out, the point would still be clear - and a little less confrontational.
As regards Snapiti's suggestion that I send it to the company, they already know my views and I think their attitude would be that they know what they're doing in the Austtralian market and are paying big bucks to some PR/advertising company there while I'm just piping up from an armchair in Wellington. I'd like to think they may be watching this thread, though.
As regards Snapiti's suggestion that I send it to the company, they already know my views and I think their attitude would be that they know what they're doing in the Austtralian market and are paying big bucks to some PR/advertising company there while I'm just piping up from an armchair in Wellington. I'd like to think they may be watching this thread, though.
Beta casein A1 and A2 in milk and human health: Lay Summary
About 25-30% of the protein in cows' milk is β-casein and it comes in several forms depending on the genetic make up of the cows. One of the forms is called A1 β-casein and it has been suggested that it might cause or aggravate one type 1 diabetes (which is the type seen most commonly in children), heart disease, schizophrenia, and autism. The other main form of β-casein is called A2 and it has not been not been implicated in these diseases. The evidence to support the hypothesis that the A1/A2 composition of milk is a causative or protective factor in these diseases is reviewed in the report. The strongest evidence is for type 1 diabetes and heart disease. The main study supporting a relationship with the type of milk consumed was a comparison of 20 countries. Those countries with the highest consumption of A1 β-casein had the highest rates of type 1 diabetes and heart disease. The relationship was very strong indeed, but these types of comparisons between countries can be difficult to interpret. There are many other factors that contribute to these diseases and the information is only averaged for the whole country's population. There have been a few other human and animal studies which provide some limited support for the hypothesis. Further research, especially involving human trials, is needed before it can be said with confidence that the A1/A2 composition of milk is important in human health. The evidence in relation to an effect of A1 β-casein on schizophrenia or autism is much less. Some individuals with autism seem to improve on special diets that are free of both casein and gluten. The A1/A2hypothesis is both intriguing and potentially very important for population health if it is proved correct. It should be taken seriously and further research is needed. In addition, the appropriate government agencies have a responsibility to communicate the current state of evidence to the public, including the uncertainty about the evidence. Further public health actions, such as changing dietary advice or requiring labelling of milk products, are not considered to be warranted at this stage. Monitoring is also required to ensure that any claims made for A2 milk fall within the regulations for food claims. Changing the dairy herds to more A2 producing cows is an option for the dairy and associated industries and these decisions will undoubtedly be made on a commercial basis. Changing dairy herds to more A2 producing cows may significantly improve public health, if the A1/A2 hypothesis is proved correct, and it is highly unlikely to do harm. As a matter of individual choice, people may wish to reduce or remove A1 β-casein from their diet (or their children's diet) as a precautionary measure. This may be particularly relevant for those individuals who have or are at risk of the diseases mentioned (type 1 diabetes, coronary heart disease, autism and schizophrenia). However, they should do so knowing that there is substantial uncertainty about the benefits of such an approach.
Actually the "lay summary" posted by Master98 is ten years old and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. The Food Safety Authority commissioned Professor Swinburn, a NZ endocrinologist at that time working at Deakin University in Australia, to review the published scientific literature on A1/A2.
His report was puiblished in 2004 I think. The Lay Summary which has just been posted was part of that report, but the food Safety Authority didn't like it, so it excised it from the report as published. It also issued a statement by Carole Inkster, one of its officials, putting an extremnely misleading gloss on Swinburn's basic findings. Her statement is still prominently situated on the FSA website. The FSA also released Swinburn's report on a day when it knew Swibnburn would be unable to attend a media conference to answer questions, so that the FSA's own misrepresentation of it got full media coverage without his being able to dispute it.
This caused a certain amount of protest, so the government forced the FSA to call in the head of the European FSA, Dr Slorach, to review the whole issue. His review tore a strip off the NZFSA's handling of the matter, but it also made the point quite strongly that there was not yet enough firm scientific evidence against A1 milk to justify warnings to consumers about its risk factors. The Slorach findings are still widely quoted against A2. But one thing that came out of all this was that the SFA very reluctantly reinstated the "Lay Summary" on its website, although it's not that easy to find compared with the SFA's own misinterpretation of it.
In the meantime Prof Swinburn, who had taken a very careful stance in his report, saying more research was needed to ascertain the risks attached to A1, has changed his own view in the light of the mounting research supporting the anti-A1 position, and has said he basically goes along with the A2 argument.
It needs to be remembered that at the time of the Swinburn report, part of the NZFSA's constitutional duty was to issue certificates assuring foreign purchasers of NZ dairy exports that they were totally safe to consume, so it was easy to see why they resorted to various dirty tricks to mislead the public over Swinburn's findings.
Actually the "lay summary" posted by Master98 is ten years old and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. The Food Safety Authority commissioned Professor Swinburn, a NZ endocrinologist at that time working at Deakin University in Australia, to review the published scientific literature on A1/A2.
His report was puiblished in 2004 I think. The Lay Summary which has just been posted was part of that report, but the food Safety Authority didn't like it, so it excised it from the report as published. It also issued a statement by Carole Inkster, one of its officials, putting an extremnely misleading gloss on Swinburn's basic findings. Her statement is still prominently situated on the FSA website. The FSA also released Swinburn's report on a day when it knew Swibnburn would be unable to attend a media conference to answer questions, so that the FSA's own misrepresentation of it got full media coverage without his being able to dispute it.
This caused a certain amount of protest, so the government forced the FSA to call in the head of the European FSA, Dr Slorach, to review the whole issue. His review tore a strip off the NZFSA's handling of the matter, but it also made the point quite strongly that there was not yet enough firm scientific evidence against A1 milk to justify warnings to consumers about its risk factors. The Slorach findings are still widely quoted against A2. But one thing that came out of all this was that the SFA very reluctantly reinstated the "Lay Summary" on its website, although it's not that easy to find compared with the SFA's own misinterpretation of it.
In the meantime Prof Swinburn, who had taken a very careful stance in his report, saying more research was needed to ascertain the risks attached to A1, has changed his own view in the light of the mounting research supporting the anti-A1 position, and has said he basically goes along with the A2 argument.
It needs to be remembered that at the time of the Swinburn report, part of the NZFSA's constitutional duty was to issue certificates assuring foreign purchasers of NZ dairy exports that they were totally safe to consume, so it was easy to see why they resorted to various dirty tricks to mislead the public over Swinburn's findings.
Not wanting to be accused of being a conspiratist, I'm sure that there would have been a fair amount of political pressure bought to bear on the FSA to ameliorate Swinburn's report and commission another report from a possibly more "favourable" source, where an element of uncertainty around reliability, more testing and research needed etc could be introduced into the debate. Otherwise a potential disaster to NZ's milk industry would have had a similar effect as a foot and mouth outbreak would have on the NZ economy. This would not only be a Fonterra issue but a NZ economic issue.
Who knows if Swinburn was "paid off" to emphasize that more research was needed? Emphasizing this point would not be untruthful necessarily from a scientific point of view.
Having said this, its a fairly complex scientific study that has been undertaken determining that it is the bcm-7 released from the A1 beta casein protein which makes up about 30 to 40% of total protein which causes the health issues!
Not wanting to be accused of being a conspiratist, I'm sure that there would have been a fair amount of political pressure bought to bear on the FSA to ameliorate Swinburn's report and commission another report from a possibly more "favourable" source, where an element of uncertainty around reliability, more testing and research needed etc could be introduced into the debate. Otherwise a potential disaster to NZ's milk industry would have had a similar effect as a foot and mouth outbreak would have on the NZ economy. This would not only be a Fonterra issue but a NZ economic issue.
Who knows if Swinburn was "paid off" to emphasize that more research was needed? Emphasizing this point would not be untruthful necessarily from a scientific point of view.
There was some politics involved, but it came from several directions. From my knowledge of Prof Swinburn, he wouldn't have given in to any political pressure, and his report, including the lay summary, was generally accepted as being of high scientific quality - given that it didn't involve any actual research by him, it was just a review of the research already carried out by others. It wouldn't surprise me if there was pressure on the FSA, mainly from the Dairy Board (as it was then), to tone down Swinburn's findings. But when the FSA's games stirred some controversy, some of the pressure to get a review of its actions came in fact from the Green Party's food safety spokeswoman, Sue Kedgley. It was the FSA's then boss who then hand-picked his friend Dr Slorach from the European FSA for the job. Wheels within wheels. The FSAs of various countries are understandably united in not wanting to create general consumer fear about drinking milk, and that's a position even supported by ATM.
I would absolutely doubt that Swinburn was in any way "paid off" to come to his conclusions. His position was a very reasonable one, given the state of the science at the time. But since then, a great deal more has been learned about BCM-7 and A1, and about the fact that drinking A2 avoids at least some of the problems associated with A1.
As to what percentage of NZ milk is A1, I've seen various estimates, but it's not that much of an issue because in standard milk the two types are mixed together, and even having just a small percentage of A1 in the mix can have bad effects on some people with certain medical preconditions.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by NT001
Bookmarks