PSA and book rec: Devil in the Milk

[RegGuheert]

Actually, the full title is "Devil in the Milk: Illness, Health, and the Politics of A1 and A2 Milk". I recommend this book to anyone who drinks milk and has concerns about the food your family consumes.

 

Now I know the title makes it sound like this is a book about a big conspiracy theory. Instead, I will say that it is really about a very recent scientific discovery (within our oldest children's lifetimes) of a genetic defect that many cows in the world possess that leads to milk containing a protein which produces a rather powerful opioid when broken down during digestion. The author feels consumption of this type of milk contributes to several rather disparate health issues including type 1 diabetes, heart disease and autism.

 

I am not lactose intolerant and I used to be a *very* heavy milk drinker, but I gave it up a few years ago after I first did the Fat Loss 4 Idiots diet because I discovered that I didn't snore when I didn't drink milk. MomsintheGarden likes that! But what I never could explain was the first couple of days after stopping drinking milk I experienced what I would call *severe* withdrawal symptoms including headaches and cravings. I even referred to them as such, but I could never explain how that might even be possible with milk. This research makes me think that addiction/withdrawal to/from milk might be a real possibility.

 

As I said, you really cannot call this a conspiracy theory since this is all very recent research. The conspiracy will come later if the milk industry does not make the proper adjustments to their herds to try to avoid this issue. ;)

 

P.S. I agree with the one 4-star reviewer who criticizes the writing style of the book. It can be a little tedious. OTOH, other reviewers commented that the style was OK with them.

 

P.P.S. I apologize if this has already been discussed here. I thought a search for "devil+milk" in this forum would work, but the returns seemed to be for "devil" OR "milk". Perhaps I just don't remember how to search anymore...

Edited August 26, 2011 by RegGuheert
Changed "I can be a little tedious." to "It can be a little tedious." ;-)

[Hen]

sounds very interesting. I've read in other places concerns about rising diabetes rates and modern milk. It is so hard to avoid though, I am having a problem with it and avoid it mostly, but it is in everything.

[Hen]

so, does the book mention private, organic, raw milk herds? Are they aware of this and avoiding the gene? We buy raw milk once or twice a month, but it is really expensive here in Orange county.

[RegGuheert]

sounds very interesting. I've read in other places concerns about rising diabetes rates and modern milk. It is so hard to avoid though, I am having a problem with it and avoid it mostly, but it is in everything.

Yes, there are statistical studies that indicate this. He discusses those studies and also shows that it is not *all* milk, but only the A1 type which is linked to type 1 diabetes. He also discusses some rather shocking research in that area. Of course it is not undisputed...

 

BTW, not all milk products are implicated, including cheese, due to changes in the structure of the protein.

so, does the book mention private, organic, raw milk herds? Are they aware of this and avoiding the gene? We buy raw milk once or twice a month, but it is really expensive here in Orange county.

The research has been done in New Zealand and apparently this is a hot topic there. According to the author, the milk producers there, which are major worldwide exporters, are quietly converting their herds from A1 to A2 types. (There's a real dilemma for the milk producers of A1 milk: If they acknowledge their herds are A1 type and that they consider this a problem, that would not be so good for business. It makes more sense to make the transition first before discussing it.)

 

In any case, while the author says that there is no way to know for sure about a herd unless genetic testing is done, he also indicates that most of the problem lies with Holstein herds. Most brown cows like Guernsey are fine. If you are looking into a private, organic, raw milk producer, I would ask them if their cows produce milk containing type A1 or A2 beta-casein, A1 being the implicated type. If they do not know what that means, you may want to point them to this book and ask them if they would consider having their herd tested.

 

BTW, if you click on the book on the Amazon page you can read some of the beginning of the book to get a flavor for what he is saying. (It has a ridiculous number of prefaces, intros, etc. so there is a lot of material before you even get to the book.)

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Jerseys and Guernseys and goats usually produce A1 and Holsteins (what most commercial dairies have) are usually A2. We own and operate a small dairy and use Jerseys only. We buy our Jersey cows from an oganic commercial dairy that sells to Organic Vally (I think that's the name!).

[RegGuheert]

Jerseys and Guernseys and goats usually produce A1 and Holsteins (what most commercial dairies have) are usually A2. We own and operate a small dairy and use Jerseys only. We buy our Jersey cows from an oganic commercial dairy that sells to Organic Vally (I think that's the name!).

I believe you have them backwards, since A1 beta-casein is the type considered harmful.

 

For reference, here is a web page entitled Guernsey Milk - Full of A2 Goodness. You can find many other websites extolling the benefits of A2 milk from Guernsey cows by doing a Google search.

 

ETA: The website I linked has this to say:

3 - Beta Casein A2 - All of the samples of Guernsey milk tested in the UK has more than 95% A2 which compares with 40% A2 in Jersey milk and 15% in 'ordinary milk'

Edited August 26, 2011 by RegGuheert

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

I believe you have them backwards, since A1 beta-casein is the type considered harmful.

 

For reference, here is a web page entitled Guernsey Milk - Full of A2 Goodness. You can find many other websites extolling the benefits of A2 milk from Guernsey cows by doing a Google search.

 

ETA: The website I linked has this to say:

 

Oh, my bad! Yes, I was in a hurry when typing. :001_smile:

[RegGuheert]

For those that want to see the technical details but do not want to purchase the book, here is a website (from what I believe is a commercial entity promoting A2 milk that figured prominently in the book) that covers a lot of the details: betacasein.org.

[RegGuheert]

Oh, my bad! Yes, I was in a hurry when typing. :001_smile:

Yes, it does seem backwards to me, too, since genetically it is believed that the A2 type was the original type. But the numbers just have to do that A1 was the original type of beta-casein discovered and it was called "A" to differentiate it from "B", "C", etc. Later when a close relative (different by exactly one amino acid out of the 206 in the chain) to "A" was found then they renamed it "A1" and the new one became "A2". (IIRC)

 

BTW, perhaps you can tell us more about how we can go about getting A2 milk in the United States, given that is seems to be completely unknown except to milk producers.

[Colleen]

Keep in mind that A2 milk is now trademarked by A2 Corporation, a for-profit organization.

[Hen]

Colleen, wow. So, will independent milk producers be calling it something else? I wish everything wasn't so complicated. I wish I lived on a farm....

[RegGuheert]

Keep in mind that A2 milk is now trademarked by A2 Corporation, a for-profit organization.

A2 Corporation is discussed extensively in the book, as it was founded in New Zealand by several of the key early researchers of the effects of A1 milk.

 

Do you have any specific concerns about the claims about A1 milk or do you simply throw that out there as general FUD?

[Colleen]

 

Colleen, wow. So, will independent milk producers be calling it something else? I wish everything wasn't so complicated. I wish I lived on a farm....

It's sad that food has become so complicated, yes. I think that's one reason Michael Pollan's simplified Food Rules resonates with people. Sounds like you're doing the best you can, Jen; don't stress over the hair-splitting.

 

[Colleen]

 

Do you have any specific concerns about the claims about A1 milk or do you simply throw that out there as general FUD?

FUD? That's a new one to me.:001_huh: My previous comment was merely a reminder that AS is very much an industry. I don't have concerns, per se, about the claims, although I think consumers are better-served by addressing their general diets rather than hyper-focus on specificities.

 

[RegGuheert]

FUD? That's a new one to me.:001_huh:

Sorry. It's a sales term which stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt". Basically, it is tactic used in business to place in the mind of customers or prospective customers vague concerns about the competitor's products, motives, etc.

My previous comment was merely a reminder that AS is very much an industry. I don't have concerns, per se, about the claims, although I think consumers are better-served by addressing their general diets rather than hyper-focus on specificities.

I wish I could agree with you, but what we have found is that the FDA and the large food producers in our country do NOT take care of the specifics of food in a way that protects our health interests. As a result, I started getting chronic headaches from chemicals which the food industry was and is putting in much of our food supply that should not have been there. These headaches were somewhat debilitating and affected our entire family. Until we researched, in detail, what was going on with our food I was not able to get rid of the headaches.

 

As a result of that episode, we have learned that we can improve our health by learning more about what we are eating and making appropriate adjustments. To be frank, this change has really changed our lives.

[Colleen]

Sorry. It's a sales term which stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt". Basically, it is tactic used in business to place in the mind of customers or prospective customers vague concerns about the competitor's products, motives, etc.

In what sense would my original remark have qualified as spreading "fear, uncertainty, doubt"?

I wish I could agree with you, but what we have found is that the FDA and the large food producers in our country do NOT take care of the specifics of food in a way that protects our health interests.

You completely misunderstood me. I wholeheartedly agree that we as consumers have to self-educate and make appropriate choices. I'm a long-time advocate of eating whole, local foods and supporting sustainable agriculture. I don't know you here on the forums and I haven't been posting regularly for some, which is no doubt why you haven't heard me soapbox about this subject. (Whereas others have learned to tune me out.;))

 

I'm short on time, but to briefly flesh out my earlier comment: We live in a culture wherein people rush to respond to the latest health fads and "news". Thanks to a screwed up food industry and sound-byte journalism, people often get caught up in a swirl of confusion, fine-tuning this and that element of their diet while neglecting to address the fact that their general lifestyle needs an overhaul. They can't see the forest for the trees. I am suggesting that for the general public, potential drawbacks to A1 milk versus A2 is minor in comparison to the rest of what they're eating/doing (or not eating/doing) on a daily basis.

[RegGuheert]

In what sense would my original remark have qualified as spreading "fear, uncertainty, doubt"?

It seemed to me that your comment was to try to discourage others from investigating the subject of A1 milk through the book by spreading doubt on the motivations of one of the main proponents of A2 milk. I'm wondering: Does your livelihood presently depend on the sale of A1 milk, at least in part?

I am suggesting that for the general public, potential drawbacks to A1 milk versus A2 is minor in comparison to the rest of what they're eating/doing (or not eating/doing) on a daily basis.

I disagree. For instance, in one early experiment mice bred to have a propensity for type 1 diabetes were split into two groups with one group was fed A1 milk and the other was fed A2 milk. 47% of the group fed A1 milk contracted Type 1 Diabetes while NONE of the group fed A2 milk contracted it. The book I recommended discusses how the milk industry has tried to disparage this disturbing result, but I will say that if there is any validity to this experiment, then there is real reason for education and discussion.

 

Have you read the book I am recommending?

Edited August 26, 2011 by RegGuheert
bread -> bred

[Runningmom80]

Thanks for the rec! We avoid milk because of DS's allergies, and we get a lot of flack for not feeding it to the twins, who are not allergic. I keep trying to explain that no one really needs milk, and it's not that good for you, but everyone looks at me like I'm crazy!

[RegGuheert]

 

I keep trying to explain that no one really needs milk, and it's not that good for you, but everyone looks at me like I'm crazy!

It's not that surprising, is it, given how much of our childhood education (both in school and through media) was devoted to telling us how great and important milk is for us?

[TravelingChris]

Well, IMO, linking Type 1 diabetes (an autoimmune disease), heart disease (which is a big category of various diseases, not just one disease), and autism (which most research seems to be leading to a genetic link) together and saying they are caused by a certain type of milk is just silly. The bigger problem seems to be not which type of milk people drink but all the kids who drink soda instead of milk which may help lead to Type 2 diabetes, but not type 1.

[Margaret in GA]

Thanks for the rec! We avoid milk because of DS's allergies, and we get a lot of flack for not feeding it to the twins, who are not allergic. I keep trying to explain that no one really needs milk, and it's not that good for you, but everyone looks at me like I'm crazy!

:iagree: I don't drink milk or consume any milk products. People think I'm nuts. I know it makes me sick and I know it makes many others (including my parents) sick, too. But, I'm the crazy one. :glare:

 

Margaret

[RegGuheert]

Well, IMO, linking Type 1 diabetes (an autoimmune disease), heart disease (which is a big category of various diseases, not just one disease), and autism (which most research seems to be leading to a genetic link) together and saying they are caused by a certain type of milk is just silly. The bigger problem seems to be not which type of milk people drink but all the kids who drink soda instead of milk which may help lead to Type 2 diabetes, but not type 1.

I agree it does sound crazy, and so do the researchers. On top of what you say, Type 1 diabetes is typically something that occurs early in life while heart disease is something which typically occurs later in life.

 

Still, the author makes a pretty compelling case in this book. I encourage you to read it.

[Runningmom80]

It's not that surprising, is it, given how much of our childhood education (both in school and through media) was devoted to telling us how great and important milk is for us?

 

I mean, I guess I just expect that everyone stays up on this stuff. Milk not being that great for you us hardly a new idea. Maybe I can credit the dairy industry for it's successful ad campaigns. :lol:

[Colleen]

It seemed to me that your comment was to try to discourage others from investigating the subject of A1 milk through the book by spreading doubt on the motivations of one of the main proponents of A2 milk.

Your assumptions are off-base. I made a mild comment, pointing out what may not be obvious ~ namely, that there's financial advantage to promoting A2 milk (just as there's financial advantage to promoting anything). There's no need for you to assume the worst, simply because someone inserts a remark to add balance to the conversation.

I'm wondering: Does your livelihood presently depend on the sale of A1 milk, at least in part?

No. Why do you ask? Does your livelihood presently depend, at least in part, on the sale of A2 milk?

I disagree. For instance, in one early experiment mice bred to have a propensity for type 1 diabetes were split into two groups with one group was fed A1 milk and the other was fed A2 milk. 47% of the group fed A1 milk contracted Type 1 Diabetes while NONE of the group fed A2 milk contracted it. The book I recommended discusses how the milk industry has tried to disparage this disturbing result, but I will say that if there is any validity to this experiment, then there is real reason for education and discussion.

Your disagreement is misplaced. I never denied the fact that there's reason for education and discussion. I said that for the general public, the potential drawback of A1 milk versus A2 is minor in comparison to the rest of what they're eating/doing (or not eating/doing) on a daily basis.

Have you read the book I am recommending?

I'm well-versed in the subject and familiar with the book, yes. Edited August 27, 2011 by Colleen

[Colleen]

Well, IMO, linking Type 1 diabetes (an autoimmune disease), heart disease (which is a big category of various diseases, not just one disease), and autism (which most research seems to be leading to a genetic link) together and saying they are caused by a certain type of milk is just silly. The bigger problem seems to be not which type of milk people drink but all the kids who drink soda instead of milk which may help lead to Type 2 diabetes, but not type 1.

Ya think?:tongue_smilie:

[Colleen]

I don't drink milk or consume any milk products. People think I'm nuts. I know it makes me sick and I know it makes many others (including my parents) sick, too. But, I'm the crazy one. :glare:

That's how I feel about the vast majority of the standard American diet. My guys go through two gallons of milk a day, but there are all manner of foods and eating habits that are part of the common to the culture and relative unknowns to my children ~ and I'm the oddball for taking a pass.:)

[RegGuheert]

No. Why do you ask?

Because if you did, then you would have a financial conflict-of-interest regarding this topic, which would mean you are not an impartial commentator. As it is, you likely sell A2 milk, which, while still not impartial is at least on the same side as A2 Corporation, which you commented on. Perhaps you are frustrated that you cannot advertise that the milk you sell is A2 milk without paying a fee to them?

Does your livelihood presently depend, at least in part, on the sale of A2 milk?

No.

Your disagreement is misplaced. I never denied the fact that there's reason for education and discussion. I said that for the general public, the potential drawback of A1 milk versus A2 is minor in comparison to the rest of what they're eating/doing (or not eating/doing) on a daily basis.I'm well-versed in the subject and familiar with the book, yes.

I feel the potential of increasing the risk of type 1 diabetes in children is not minor in the least. And no, I do not agree that drinking soda is likely a bigger contributor to that problem.

 

The bottom line here is that the ingestion of Type A1 beta-casein entails the ingestion of a strong narcotic, namely a specific BCM-7 peptide. While A2 milk contains this same narcotic, it is released at a rate about 100X lower than in A1 milk. Human breast milk releases a different BCM-7 which has about 1/10th the narcotic effect and again is released at a rate of 1/100 that of the BCM-7 from A1 cows milk.

 

A couple of points:

 

- I suspect that over 99% of the posters here do not realize that when their children are essentially taking narcotics when they drink milk.

- There is *nothing* that indicates that the frequent, long-term consumption of this particular BCM-7 in the quantities released from A1 cows milk is safe.

- There IS evidence that consumption of A1 cows milk might *greatly* increase the possibility Type 1 diabetes, heart disease and autism.

 

I agree that the jury is still out on this topic, but since the jury includes large players with significant vested interests, I am not particularly interested in their verdict. The evidence I see makes it clear to me that drinking A1 may be more dangerous to my family's health than drinking A2 milk, possibly *greatly* so. In any case, as a matter of principle, I do not give my children a regular dose of narcotics. I suspect other parents may think likewise.

 

Unfortunately, I have not yet found a source of A2 milk for my family.

Edited August 27, 2011 by RegGuheert

[RegGuheert]

My guys go through two gallons of milk a day, ...

But you are a milk producer, right? You have a *much* better idea about what goes into the milk that your children consume than nearly everyone else here.

[mirth]

From the amazon.com review:

 

In Devil in the Milk, Keith Woodford brings together the evidence published in more than 100 scientific papers. He examines the population studies that look at the link between consumption of A1 milk and the incidence of heart disease and Type 1 diabetes; he explains the science that underpins the A1/A2 hypothesis; and he examines the research undertaken with animals and humans. The evidence is compelling: We should be switching to A2 milk. A2 milk from selected cows is now marketed in parts of the U.S., and it is possible to convert a herd of cows producing A1 milk to cows producing A2 milk.

 

I have never seen anything about A1 or A2 written on a milk jug. How do you know, unless you trace back to the cow and assume no mixing?

[RegGuheert]

I have never seen anything about A1 or A2 written on a milk jug. How do you know, unless you trace back to the cow and assume no mixing?

You do not know. As mentioned, this idea that the beta-casein in A1 milk may be harmful was not even a consideration 20 years ago, so this is quite new information. Still, the milk industry in the U.S. has decided to keep this information a secret, unlike the same industries in Britain and New Zealand. I suspect that if we want to see this information provided about the milk we consume then we will need to demand it. As you can read in this thread, milk producers in the U.S. are downplaying the significance of the dangers of consuming A1 milk (without providing ANY evidence to support that position). IMO, a much better approach would be to provide the information to consumers and let us make our own decisions about what is best for our families.

 

The only numbers I've seen for the the ratios of A1/A2 milk by herd type were found on the Guernsey Milk Promotion website:

All of the samples of Guernsey milk tested in the UK has more than 95% A2 which compares with 40% A2 in Jersey milk and 15% in 'ordinary milk'.

Since the U.S. and European herds are said to be similar, I suspect the ratios in the U.S. may be similar. In other words, "ordinary milk" we drink here may contain about 85% A1 milk. Edited August 27, 2011 by RegGuheert
Expanded the first paragraph.

[mirth]

Two disclosures. (1) I am always interested in knowing about specifics, models, or even conjectures about gut balance and its effect on human immunology though I knew nothing about A1, A2 beta-caseins before these posts. (2) I do/did have a personal interest in A1 and A2 b-caseins because apparently they're not something unique to cows but found in human breastmilk as well. :)

 

That said, two review papers I found on pubmed seem not to draw a correlation between A2 and T1 Diabetes or any other diseases though both concede that it would've been a big deal correlation if it were shown.

 

Since I do not have the book, are there any papers or sets of authors that the book author seem to cite often, or did he blow holes in the reviews below (which were kind of hard to miss even for an A1/A2 novice like me)?

 

Milk A1 and A2 peptides and diabetes

Abstract

Food-derived peptides, specifically those derived from milk, may adversely affect health by increasing the risk of insulin-dependent diabetes. This position is based on the relationship of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and the consumption of variants A1 and B β-casein from cow's milk. It appears that β-casomorphin-7 (BCM-7) from β-casein may function as an immunosuppressant and impair tolerance to dietary antigens in the gut immune system, which, in turn, may contribute to the onset of T1D. There are thirteen genetic variants of β-casein in dairy cattle. Among those variants are A1, A2, and B, which are also found in human milk. The amino acid sequences of β-casomorphins among these bovine variants and those found in human milk are similar, often differing only by a single amino acid. In vitro studies indicate BCM-7 can be produced from A1 and B during typical digestive processes; however, BCM-7 is not a product of A2 digestion. Evidence from several epidemiological studies and animal models does not support the association of milk proteins, even proteins in breast milk, and the development of T1D. Ecological data, primarily based on A1/ A2 variations among livestock breeds, do not demonstrate causation, even among countries where there is considerable dairy consumption.

 

 

 

The A2 milk case: a critical review

Abstract

This review outlines a hypothesis that A1 one of the common variants of beta-casein, a major protein in cows milk could facilitate the immunological processes that lead to type I diabetes (DM-I). It was subsequently suggested that A1 beta-casein may also be a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD), based on between-country correlations of CHD mortality with estimated national consumption of A1 beta-casein in a selected number of developed countries. A company, A2 Corporation was set up in New Zealand in the late 1990s to test cows and market milk in several countries with only the A2 variant of beta-casein, which appeared not to have the disadvantages of A1 beta-casein. The second part of this review is a critique of the A1/A2 hypothesis. For both DM-I and CHD, the between-country correlation method is shown to be unreliable and negated by recalculation with more countries and by prospective studies in individuals. The animal experiments with diabetes-prone rodents that supported the hypothesis about diabetes were not confirmed by larger, better standardised multicentre experiments. The single animal experiment supporting an A1 beta-casein and CHD link was small, short, in an unsuitable animal model and had other design weaknesses. The A1/A2 milk hypothesis was ingenious. If the scientific evidence had worked out it would have required huge adjustments in the world's dairy industries. This review concludes, however, that there is no convincing or even probable evidence that the A1 beta-casein of cow milk has any adverse effect in humans. This review has been independent of examination of evidence related to A1 and A2 milk by the Australian and New Zealand food standard and food safety authorities, which have not published the evidence they have examined and the analysis of it. They stated in 2003 that no relationship has been established between A1 or A2 milk and diabetes, CHD or other diseases.

Edited August 27, 2011 by mirth

[RegGuheert]

Since I do not have the book, are there any papers or sets of authors that the book author seem to cite often, or did he blow holes in the reviews below (which were kind of hard to miss even for an A1/A2 novice like me)?

Yes, he does. The original study that showed the strong differences in Type 1 diabetes rates between those mice fed A1 versus A2 milk has not been duplicated in subsequent experiments. However, what the author has pointed out is that in the subsequent experiments there were additional supplements included in the diet that included A1 milk. As a result, BOTH the test and the control groups were being fed A1 milk. In those studies the rate of occurrence of Type 1 diabetes was similar between both groups.

 

I would be interested in knowing who funded the reports you have referenced, since the milk industry has a strong financial incentive to discredit this relationship.

 

The links to heart disease are epidemiological studies and therefore it is much harder to prove things one way or the other. How strong of a correlation is necessary to prove the point?

[Colleen]

I suspect that if we want to see this information provided about the milk we consume then we will need to demand it.

I agree.

 

As you can read in this thread, milk producers in the U.S. are downplaying the significance of the dangers of consuming A1 milk (without providing ANY evidence to support that position).

:rolleyes: You desperately want to read something into my comments that isn't there. Save yourself the trouble.

 

IMO, a much better approach would be to provide the information to consumers and let us make our own decisions about what is best for our families.

I agree. I'm all about open information and education ~ as I've said repeatedly in this thread, and innumerable times on this board over the years.

[Colleen]

But you are a milk producer, right? You have a *much* better idea about what goes into the milk that your children consume than nearly everyone else here.

Of course. I try to know as much as possible about all the food we consume; alas, it's often easier said than done.

[RegGuheert]

:rolleyes: You desperately want to read something into my comments that isn't there. Save yourself the trouble.

Fair enough.

[Colleen]

Because if you did, then you would have a financial conflict-of-interest regarding this topic, which would mean you are not an impartial commentator.

Which underscores my original point: Those involved with the industry are not impartial commentators.

As it is, you likely sell A2 milk, which, while still not impartial is at least on the same side as A2 Corporation, which you commented on. Perhaps you are frustrated that you cannot advertise that the milk you sell is A2 milk without paying a fee to them?

I'm not frustrated about anything related to this thread other than your insistence to skew my comments.

 

I agree that the jury is still out on this topic, but since the jury includes large players with significant vested interests, I am not particularly interested in their verdict.

So as far as your concerned, any information you've shared is from unbiased sources, whereas any further studies and information aren't worthy of your attention? Okay.

[Mrs Mungo]

So as far as your concerned, any information you've shared is from unbiased sources, whereas any further studies and information aren't worthy of your attention? Okay.

 

This is sort of a strange stance to take, Reg, given that Colleen pointed out that (if I am reading the posts correctly) the people behind this unpublished study trademarked the A2 label. Hardly disinterested parties, I think. And I think that was Colleen's point. People whose interest is promoting food knowledge and health will promote it rather than capitalize upon it. Therefore, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[RegGuheert]

 

So as far as your concerned, any information you've shared is from unbiased sources, whereas any further studies and information aren't worthy of your attention? Okay.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Rather, my approach is to use caution with any claims from the food industry, particularly in areas where they feel compelled to claim "all is fine, our food will not hurt you". Throughout my lifetime, such claims by the food industry have almost always proven to be faulty. Unfortunately, those who trusted those claims have often suffered greatly. This trend is so ubiquitous that it is idiomatic to me.

[RegGuheert]

 

This is sort of a strange stance to take, Reg,

Yes, it is a strange stance to take. And I never took it.

[Mrs Mungo]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Rather, my approach is to use caution with any claims from the food industry

 

Colleen's point, Reg, is that these claims *are* from the food industry, one with a vested interest in making you believe A is better than B.

[RegGuheert]

Colleen's point, Reg, is that these claims *are* from the food industry, one with a vested interest in making you believe A is better than B.

It's true. The original researchers all came from the milk industry in New Zealand. But the history is important here: Once they started to report what they had found, they quickly discovered that they would have to move outside of the existing industry and get their own sources of funding in order to pursue this further.

 

I will again say that I recommend that you read the book. The author is very careful to try to give full disclaimers to be able to make his case. To the point of being rather pedantic, IMO.

 

ETA: Ask yourself this: Can you imagine ANY circumstance under which you would read a report from the milk industry such as the following? "We have done our own research and we have concluded that type A1 milk, which is the primary type we sell is linked to higher rates of both type 1 diabetes and heart disease." Even if you can imagine it, I cannot.

Edited August 27, 2011 by RegGuheert

[Colleen]

Yes, it is a strange stance to take. And I never took it.

You could've fooled me.

 

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Rather, my approach is to use caution with any claims from the food industry, particularly in areas where they feel compelled to claim "all is fine, our food will not hurt you".

It wasn't my intent to put words in your mouth and imo I didn't do so. You said that while the jury is still out, you aren't interested in their verdict anyway ~ the assumption being that the jury and verdict from here on out aren't worthy of your consideration. That's quite different from saying, as you did now, that your approach is to use caution with any claims from the food industry. (A point with which I agree, as I've said ad nauseaum.)

 

Colleen's point, Reg, is that these claims *are* from the food industry, one with a vested interest in making you believe A is better than B.

Exactly. Pretty darn simple, eh?

[Mrs Mungo]

It's true. The original researchers all came from the milk industry in New Zealand. But the history is important here: Once they started to report what they had found, they quickly discovered that they would have to move outside of the existing industry and get their own sources of funding in order to pursue this further.

 

I will again say that I recommend that you read the book. The author is very careful to try to give full disclaimers to be able to make his case. To the point of being rather pedantic, IMO.

 

ETA: Ask yourself this: Can you imagine ANY circumstance under which you would read a report from the milk industry such as the following? "We have done our own research and we have concluded that type A1 milk, which is the primary type we sell is linked to higher rates of both type 1 diabetes and heart disease." Even if you can imagine it, I cannot.

 

I can certainly imagine a group trademarking a characteristic in a group of cattle, making sure all of their cattle bear that characteristic and then writing a book on why cows with this characteristic are healthier than other cows.

[RegGuheert]

Exactly. Pretty darn simple, eh?

Only if you ignore the history. I will ask again: Have you read this book? I asked previously and you said you were familiar with it. I don't think you have read it. Instead you have simply spread FUD about the subject without substantiating a single one of your statements, not even from a source within the milk industry.

[RegGuheert]

I can certainly imagine a group trademarking a characteristic in a group of cattle, making sure all of their cattle bear that characteristic and then writing a book on why cows with this characteristic are healthier than other cows.

So can I. Is that what happened here? I don't think so based on what I have read.

[Mrs Mungo]

Only if you ignore the history. I will ask again: Have you read this book? I asked previously and you said you were familiar with it. I don't think you have read it. Instead you have simply spread FUD about the subject without substantiating a single one of your statements, not even from a source within the milk industry.

 

Why would she bother when someone already posted 2 studies and you blew them off?

[RegGuheert]

Why would she bother when someone already posted 2 studies and you blew them off?

Actually, I detailed the fallacies in the experiments which were referenced in these two papers and THEN implied that they may not be from an impartial source.

[Colleen]

I will ask again: Have you read this book? I asked previously and you said you were familiar with it. I don't think you have read it.

I'm familiar with it and have read excerpts, but I've not read the book in its entirety. As I said, I'm well-versed on the subject. I feel comfortable saying I'm at least as knowledgeable as you, despite the fact that you've read something I haven't read (in its entirety).:)

 

Instead you have simply spread FUD about the subject without substantiating a single one of your statements, not even from a source within the milk industry.

Again, I encourage you to stop your failed attempts at creating a conspiracy. My original comment was a simple point of fact. Nothing more, nothing less, not a matter of spreading "FUD", and nothing to substantiate. I never took a position on the subject at hand, other than to agree with you that consumers deserve to be informed. You win this week's award for conjuring disagreement where none exists.

[RegGuheert]

I'm familiar with it and have read excerpts, but I've not read the book in its entirety. As I said, I'm well-versed on the subject. I feel comfortable saying I'm at least as knowledgeable as you, despite the fact that you've read something I haven't read (in its entirety).:)

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree there is much to be learned here!

Again, I encourage you to stop your failed attempts at creating a conspiracy. My original comment was a simple point of fact. Nothing more, nothing less, not a matter of spreading "FUD", and nothing to substantiate. I never took a position on the subject at hand, other than to agree with you that consumers deserve to be informed. You win this week's award for conjuring disagreement where none exists.

Thanks, I like awards! ;)

 

It sounds like we agree for the most part. I do encourage you to read Devil in the Milk if you have a chance. If you have any public sources of information on this topic, I would appreciate you providing them here. I'm sure others would appreciate that, as well!

Edited August 27, 2011 by RegGuheert

[RegGuheert]

(1) I am always interested in knowing about specifics, models, or even conjectures about gut balance and its effect on human immunology though I knew nothing about A1, A2 beta-caseins before these posts.

Here is specific conjecture about the possible mechanisms in the gut which could contribute to Type 1 Diabetes with quite a few references:

There are two possible mechanisms by which A1 beta-casein may contribute to the development of DM-1. The first relates to the opioid activity of the A1 beta-casein derived BCM-7, while the second relates to the potential molecular mimicry (or cross-reactivity) between beta-casein, and an epitope of the pancreatic beta-cell glucose transporter GLUT-2 (39, 43), as autoantibodies to GLUT-2 have been described in patients with recent-onset DM-1 (44). In terms of the first possibility, it is hypothesised that BCM-7’s opioid characteristics might contribute to the impairment of the development of gut-associated immune tolerance in ‘at risk’ individuals and as such “it might act as an adjuvant in the autoimmune reaction involved in the destruction of beta-cells in prediabetic subjects†(2, 32, 36, 45). This is supported by the attenuation of A1 beta-casein’s apparent diabetogenicity following the administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone (36). The second mechanism involves the potential antigenic determination characteristic of beta-casein, which may lead to the autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta-cells (43, 44). More specifically, Cavallo et al. (1996) have suggested that there may be molecular mimicry between a sequence of the beta-casein protein and an epitope of the GLUT 2 transporter (39), which may give rise to autoantibodies capable of targeting pancreatic beta-cells

(2) I do/did have a personal interest in A1 and A2 b-caseins because apparently they're not something unique to cows but found in human breastmilk as well. :)

Actually, the beta-casein found in human breastmilk is not the same as the that found in cows' milk, including the seven-amino-acid segment that can be broken off to produce the opioid BCM-7. It is called BCM-7 in both cases, but this peptide when derived from human milk is a slightly different sequence which has 1/10 the narcotic effect of that from cows' milk. Also the human version of the beta-casein molecule has proline on the one side of the BCM-7 segment, just like A2 milk, so the rate of production of BCM-7 in the gut from human milk is about 1/100th that of A1 cows' milk. In other words, the overall narcotic effect of digested human breastmilk is roughly 1/1000th that of A1 cows' milk.

 

ETA: Do you have a link that indicates that some human breastmilk contains beta-casein which includes histidine next to the isoleucine end of the BCM-7 segment instead of proline?

Edited August 28, 2011 by RegGuheert