Originally Posted by
blobbles
I don't see how a judge would want to wade into that debate. Lions claim doesn't make sense to me, if they are able to successfully prosecute A2 for labelling milk A2 and even if there were doubts about the health benefits, when they subsequently put A2 on their own label, would they not be suing themselves? If Lion then claims they only did it for branding purposes, then they cannot make a claim based on health benefits. Frankly, I fail to see a defensible position for Lion here...
Its pretty easy for A2 I think, which is why they are confident. Personally I think the science (and I have read quite a few of the studies, plus personal anecdotes) is not bad. There is not yet absolute proof, there probably never will be. But proof enough for most people. However, if a judge were to rule in Lions favour, they would be setting a precedent of absolute proof for all goods sold. Then anything that is not proven with absolute certainty (which is impossible anyway, if you know anything about science) and is on sale and claims to have health benefits, should be taken down. Goodbye 90% of all vitamins, supplements, skin care, herbal remedies etc etc.