The company promoting A2 milk claims that the protein from milk that most of us drink (i.e. from Holstein and Friesian cows) causes an adverse autoimmune response in the gut putting us at risk for diabetes, heart disease, and autism. They further claim that milk from Guernsey and Jersey cows is harmless. Most scientists from the U.S. and U.K. are understandably skeptical, particularly since New Zealand’s A2 Corporation is leading the charge. However, as more reputable, peer-reviewed journals continue to publish research supportive of A2 health claims, at least a few scientists are beginning to rethink a few cherished notions.

The basis for the claims stems from the variance in structure of unique protein fractions found in different milk varieties. A type of protein from Holstein milk, called A1 beta casein, is different in structure and (claimed) physiological potential from A2 beta casein, found in traditionally bred cows (like Guernseys), sheep, and goats. And, for the past decade, Bob Elliot (a former professor at the University of Auckland) has been publishing the results of rodent research supportive of A2’s passive proteins. According to Professor Bob, mice fed A1 milk developed high levels of diabetes whereas those who consumed A2 milk did not – music to the ears of A2 marketers. A2 proponents also like to point to the strong, worldwide link of A1 milk consumption to disease, with only weaker health threats associated with A2. (Note: Population research never establishes cause and effect, only correlation. Suggesting causal relationships exist via epidemiological associations when the biological effect of the purported demonic or angelic nutrient has not been established is, at best, spurious.)

From the non-commercial sector, Professor Paolo Pozzilli (St. Bartholomew’s Hospital – London, U.K.) collaborated with Bob Elliot in an attempt to demonstrate Professor Bob’s earlier findings on diabetes in mice. It bombed. No differences were observed between A1 or A2 milk in their ability to induce diabetes in rodents. According to Pozzilli, “Cows milk is one of the environmental factors involved in triggering the autoimmune response that can cause type 1 diabetes in susceptible individuals. It may not be the most relevant one, but it is certainly the most commonly encountered. However, I would not consider A2 cow’s milk to be less antigenic (i.e. capable of triggering an immune response) than A1.”

The founder of the A2 Corporation is Dr. Corrie McLachlan, a chemistry maverick and rabble rouser spearheading the A2 movement, financing questionable A2 Corporation backed research, and instigating knock-down legal brawls with his unfriendly competitor, Fonterra, New Zealand’s main dairy company. Last year, for instance, McLachlan took Fonterra to court for selling (Holstein) milk without health warnings. (He claims they have suppressed evidence about A1’s ability to aggravate neurological disorders such as autism).

So, what’s the bottom line? Answer: There is no bottom line - yet. As the A1/A2 debate flourishes between parties with vested interests, objectivity, as we might expect, is not prevailing. Even A2 Corporation grant recipient Prof. Julie Campbell (Director of the Centre for Research in Vascular Biology at the University of Queensland, Australia) admits it is unfortunate that commercial entities are at the forefront of the debate on such an important health issue. But since it is speculated that a large U.S. company will soon be marketing A2 milk and milk products, should American milk drinkers spend $4-$5 per gallon on a product whose disputed “proven” benefits were established only by one company, the marketer, expected to gross over 2 billion dollars this year in New Zealand and Australia alone? I think not. Is it a scam? Can’t say, although it has all the earmarks – not unlike coral calcium, garlic, sea silver, Tahitian noni, etc. The best advice is to be patient, Pilgrim, we’ll know soon enough.

[ back to articles menu ]