The interesting part is going to the end of the article where there is a poll, asking 'Do a2's claims stack up?'
Out of 2030 respondents, 75% said no. Although hardly scientific at the end of a negative a2 article.
Printable View
This little line in the poll following nutritionist Rosemary Stanton's comments says a lot:
Disclaimer: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.
And of course, what percentage of those who voted would even know what A2's claims are? Such polls are plain silly.
Plus, if 75% said they didn't believe A2's claims, presumably the other 25% did, and 25% isn't a bad market share.
Drinking a2 milk and wearing ear muffs should protect me from low frequency radio waves.:)
slowly breaking down short term target 58c
Or else the bottom is in around 60-62 cents. I am still waiting for the technical signals.
Thanks for clarifying that, BK. The company's website most definitely does advance a health claim in relation to the Curtin results, although as always it is careful in doing so. The headline states that the Curtin trial "shows there is a difference" and then goes on to give details:
http://thea2milkcompany.com/first-hu...ifference-2-2/
As regards the comparison between A1/A2 and the old cell tower controversy, there was in fact a huge difference. In the cell-tower debate there were conflicting scientific views and conflicting scientific test results, and people like Telecom were happy to provide experts to be questioned by the media, producing data in open debate with the protesters.
In the case of A2 milk, there is no longer any real scientific conflict, there is just commercial stonewalling and PR campaigning by the mainstream milk industry. Big dairy in Australia and NZ just hasn't been heard from on this subject for several years and apparently has to rely on outsiders like nutritionist Rosemary Stanton. Moreover, she is not producing any alternative research - she's just saying she finds the Curtin research results "odd" and calling for larger-scale research (which is planned). She is also not offering any explanation as to why large numbers of Australian consumers are experiencing tangible benefits from A2 milk and why some Australian autism specialists are reporting positive results from recommending that their patients switch to A2. Some dismiss all this as "anecdotal", but the science is gradually producing explanations (eg the Curtin trial).
As regards the cell-tower analogy, a better one is the controversy that went on for decades about smoking and lung cancer. The tobacco industry, with the support of various governments, found it difficult to dispute the increasing body of research confirming a link, so it just kept arguing year after year that "more proof" was still needed, long after the link was blindingly obvious. That's exactly the line being taken by mainstream dairy and the food safety authorities regarding A2.
As for the suggestion that A2MC's associated science-medical website is "sailing pretty close to the wind", in what way? It is not aimed at generating consumer sales, and is moderated by an appropriately qualified scientist, with all its contents based very firmly on referenced external research. It is a valuable scientific resource, and any attempt to suppress it would hardly go down well with a knowledge-based scientific community.