ATM - A2 Milk Corporation Limited

[RGR367]

Here's the news item from TV3

http://www.3news.co.nz/A2-milk-easie...1/Default.aspx

And it says, "The study was funded by New Zealand-based A2 Milk Company, ......" which says a lot about this report.

disc own no share

[MAC]

And it says, "The study was funded by New Zealand-based A2 Milk Company, ......" which says a lot about this report.

disc own no share

Are not all clinical studies funded by the company developing the product, just the same as any biotech. Good to see it was a double blinded study also, which says even more about the report.

[NT001]

And it says, "The study was funded by New Zealand-based A2 Milk Company, ......" which says a lot about this report.

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy and was addressed by the research team leader. Cynicism is something else. There will be those in the public, the media and the dairy industry who will be cynical, but I would suggest it is best that members of this thread have a slightly higher and better informed analytical threshold.

Peer-reviewed journals, especially one with such a high reputation as the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, havereview panels of experts who are always very ready to tear a research report to pieces and deny it publication if it has weaknesses. A report will get a special going-over if there is any suspicion, as there could have been in this case, that its results have been bought and paid for by its funder.

The report on A1/A2 by Professor Boyd Swinburn that was commissioned by the NZ Food Safety Authority some years ago said this subject urgently needs more research, in the interests of milk consumers and of the NZ dairy industry. You would think NZ would be a good place to do it, but nope. Fonterra wasn't going to fund or carry out such research because it knows the results will be unwelcome to the mainstream dairy industry. And likewise, the government wasn't forking out funds. So what else is ATM to do, other than fund the research itself, under an arms-length arrangement that ensures credibility? In my experience, the academic researchers who do the job would be far more interested in maintaining their own reputations for scientific credibility than in saving ATM's skin.

[NT001]

Not everyone on this thread will want to be reading the minutiae of all the various media reports coming out now about the Curtin University research on A1/A2, but some of the reports in Australian media are of interest because they’re going to affect the debate going on in A2’s most profitable market.

The first is from a farming publication in Western Australia which of course will be read by dairy farmers there, but more significantly for us it includes some fascinating comments from the A2 processor in WA about the way ATM is running its campaign in Australia, and also refers to ATM’s future market plans in Australia and Asia.

http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/ag...px?storypage=0

And then this item is also interesting. It’s the same initial report by reporter Jared Lynch that was published in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of days ago, but here it is again in the farmers’ online mag Australian Dairy Farmer under a much more direct headline that pulls no punches: “Research backs A2 claims”. That will be uncomfortable reading for Dairy Australia, which takes a very hard line against A2.

http://adf.farmonline.com.au/news/ma...px?storypage=0

[Snoopy]

I am not an related expert, so can not judge your comment, can you tell us what is the "normal" milk consumption for most people? I drink 6l milk per week seems abnormal

It was probably unfair of me to put my own milk consumption under the 'normal' banner and imply that anyone ouside of that was abnormal. But try this. I remember extended family christmas gatherings made up of three generations (3 grandparents, 5 parents, 5 kids) . There were thirteen of us assembled. It was my job to bring the milk in that the delivery man dropped off in the wee hours of the morning (yes it was a few years ago). I remember being staggered that we all got through as a collective nine bottles (600ml glass things for the newcomers). Over a day that was 5.4l. Over a week 38l. Divide that by 13 people and I get 2.9l per week per person.
Of course that was only an average and the youngsters I am sure slurped down more than the oldies.

Master, I salute you consuming 6l of milk per week. You must have very good bones and very good teeth! My experience suggests that your consumption is on the high side, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that.

SNOOPY

[Snoopy]

Interesting, but isn't the significant issue the difference in correlation between the two "r" rather than an "r" value itself for A1?

Interesting point Harrie.

This comes back to the marketing dilemma for A2 milk. A2 milk is the product. But really the important thing is that the milk does not contain the A1 protein. Selling a product called "Not A1 Milk" suggests it has been left out in the sun for a few hours. So you can see why the marketing guys went for "A2". But the fact of the matter is that "Not A1 milk" is in reality the marketing message A2 milk are pushing.

To me then, the important thing to show is that A1 has some likely detrimental effect that can be avoided by consuming A2. If in reality there is no real scientific evidence that A1 milk is a problem, then the neeed for A2 as an alternative disappears. Thus as I see it, the main thrust of potential research is to

1/ First prove that there really is a problem with A1. Once that is proved, the next step is to
2/ Prove that A2 will not cause the same problem.

This is what Keith Woodford et al have tried to do with their latest research. By my way of thoinking the most important part of this research was to prove step number 1/ above. Sadly for Woodford et al this part of their research was less convincing than the fact that A1 and A2 milk proteins did initiate a different response in trial protagonists. The study's evidence on this point was much more convincing.

Just proving that A1 and A2 have different responses, as you suggest Harrie, is IMO not important until you can prove that there really is an issue with A1 to start with. It is not marketinng death for A2 if Woodford cannot quickly prove 1. Because as one person, if you are having digestive issues and in your personal experience switching to A2 'solves' your issues, then for you as a single consumer this will be enough to make you an A2 convert. But anecdotal evidence like this does not cut it as scientific proof.

SNOOPY

[G on]

Maybe their next ads should be "Zero A1"

[Snoopy]

Does a minus "r" value therefore suggest a positive or improved digestive reaction to A2?

A minus "r" indicates the two things you are trying to correlate together are affecting each other but in the opposite way to what you originally proposed.

For example if your hypothesis was that if you increased 'A', then 'B' would increase as a result (you are assuming that A and B have a +r relationship), but then if you plotted your results and found that by increasing A then B actually decreased then you would find that A and B had a "-r" relationship of some kind.

But if instead you had originally assumed that inceasing A woudl decrease B and you did the test and found this so, then this relationship between A and B woudl be a "+r" kind. Plus or minus are only significant in relation to your original assumption.

SNOOPY

[Master98]

Master, I salute you consuming 6l of milk per week. You must have very good bones and very good teeth! My experience suggests that your consumption is on the high side, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that.

SNOOPY

lol, I am a muscle builder, do drink 6l milk(now A2 only) per week.

[Harrie]

A minus "r" indicates the two things you are trying to correlate together are affecting each other but in the opposite way to what you originally proposed.

For example if your hypothesis was that if you increased 'A', then 'B' would increase as a result (you are assuming that A and B have a +r relationship), but then if you plotted your results and found that by increasing A then B actually decreased then you would find that A and B had a "-r" relationship of some kind.

But if instead you had originally assumed that inceasing A woudl decrease B and you did the test and found this so, then this relationship between A and B woudl be a "+r" kind. Plus or minus are only significant in relation to your original assumption.

SNOOPY

Yes all that makes sense snoopy, but the "r" in this analysis relates to the assumption that A1 has a detrimental impact on the digestive issues in terms of certain measurements/observations they have devised etc.
If you apply the assumption that A1 beta casein has a positive correlation (or mildly positive 0.52) with problematic digestive issues, then all you can say is that at -0.13, A2 beta casein has no, if not a slightly negative, correlation with digestive issues.
I can understand no correlation, but a negative one is a bit harder to get your head around!
It sort of suggests on the basis of the assumption above, that there are digestive "benefits" in A2 milk?