A1-A2 milk debate is all about marketing, no science

The withdrawal of FSSAI’s clarification has reignited discussions around A1 and A2 milk. The debate is a microcosm of a larger issue—the health claims of dairy as a whole.

Credit: Pixabay

In the ongoing debate over A1 and A2 milk, A2 milk has emerged as the darling of health-conscious consumers, marketed as a superior and safer alternative. But does this claim hold up under scientific scrutiny? Unfortunately, the answer is far from affirmative. The distinction, rooted in genetic differences in the beta-casein protein of cow’s milk, has been amplified by savvy marketing campaigns, not sound scientific evidence. 

In August 2024, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) briefly addressed these misleading claims, issuing a clarification that dismissed A2 milk’s supposed health superiority as lacking scientific substantiation. While this clarification aligned with consumer protection principles enshrined in the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, it was hastily withdrawn within days. This abrupt retraction not only confused consumers but also brought to light the murky intersection of regulatory action and corporate influence, raising questions about the role of public health in policymaking. 

The withdrawal of FSSAI’s clarification has reignited discussions around A1 and A2 milk. However, it also offers an opportunity to delve deeper into the broader health claims of dairy products, many of which crumble under the weight of scientific evidence. 

Understanding A1 and A2 milk

The A1 and A2 milk distinction lies in a single genetic difference in the beta-casein protein. A1 milk is said to release a peptide called beta-casomorphin-7 (BCM-7) during digestion, linked in some studies to issues such as gastrointestinal discomfort, cardiovascular risks, and neurological disorders. A2 milk, on the other hand, is touted as free from BCM-7, implying it poses no such risks. 

However, research paints a more nuanced picture. Both A1 and A2 milk release BCM-7, though the quantity varies based on individual digestive systems and health conditions. This variability makes it nearly impossible to generalise the health effects of A1 milk—or, by extension, to declare A2 milk categorically superior. For instance, a 2024 study by Choi et al. found that while some participants reported gastrointestinal discomfort after consuming A1 milk, the differences between A1 and A2 milk in alleviating such symptoms were statistically insignificant. 

The bigger picture: dairy and health 

The marketing narrative around A2 milk distracts from the larger health implications of dairy consumption. Both A1 and A2 milk contain saturated fats, which are strongly associated with

increased levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, a key factor in coronary artery disease. The American Heart Association has consistently highlighted the risks of dairy fats, reinforcing the need for dietary caution. 

Beyond cardiovascular concerns, the prevalence of lactose intolerance further challenges the dairy industry’s health claims. Nearly two-thirds of India’s population experiences lactose intolerance, yet dairy remains a dietary staple, often promoted as indispensable for nutrition. This insistence on dairy overlooks plant-based alternatives that offer similar, if not superior, nutritional benefits without the associated health risks. 

Public health implications 

The A2 milk controversy underscores the vulnerability of consumers to misleading marketing. Many individuals, swayed by unsubstantiated claims, pay a premium for A2 milk, believing it protects them from health conditions supposedly linked to A1 milk. This misdirection not only burdens consumers financially but also diverts attention from well-founded dietary advice. 

The sudden reversal of FSSAI’s clarification further complicates the landscape. By initially labelling A2-related claims as misleading, the regulatory body demonstrated a commitment to consumer welfare. Yet its subsequent withdrawal raises troubling questions about the influence of commercial interests over public health policy. 

“Consumers deserve accurate information based on sound science, not marketing tactics that play on health fears. Regulatory bodies must prioritise public health and ensure transparency in their processes,” said Pallavi Krishnappa, managing director at Consumers for Sustainability, a consumer protection initiative. 

Shifting the narrative 

The A1-A2 debate is a microcosm of a larger issue—the health claims of dairy as a whole. While the distinction between A1 and A2 milk is real, its implications for human health remain largely unproven. This calls for a broader reevaluation of dairy’s role in nutrition and public health, moving beyond the narrow focus on molecular differences to a more comprehensive understanding of dietary impacts. 

From a public health perspective, whole food, plant-based diets offer a compelling alternative. Fortified plant-based milk, derived from almonds, soy, oats, and other sources, not only provides comparable nutritional profiles but also eliminates the risks associated with dairy consumption. Encouraging consumers to explore these options can address nutritional needs while fostering sustainability and reducing reliance on animal agriculture. 

Regulatory reform and consumer advocacy 

To protect consumers from misleading health claims, stricter regulatory oversight is essential. Food labelling must reflect scientific realities rather than marketing narratives, ensuring transparency and empowering consumers to make informed choices. The initial stance taken by FSSAI offered a glimpse of what responsible regulation can achieve, and there is hope that future efforts will align more firmly with evidence-based policymaking. 

At the same time, public awareness campaigns must play a pivotal role in debunking myths surrounding dairy and promoting scientifically grounded dietary advice. The focus should shift toward educating consumers about the risks and alternatives, fostering an environment where informed choices prevail over commercial influence. 

Conclusion 

The A1-A2 milk debate serves as a cautionary tale about the power of marketing to overshadow science. While the molecular differences between A1 and A2 milk are well-documented, their relevance to human health remains tenuous at best. Moreover, the broader health risks associated with dairy consumption challenge the narrative of milk as an indispensable dietary component. 

As consumers, it is crucial to approach health claims with scepticism and seek evidence-based guidance. By embracing plant-based alternatives and advocating for regulatory transparency, we can move toward a food system that prioritises health, sustainability, and truth.

Dr Rajeena Shahin is the Medical Director at the Physicians Association for Nutrition India. Dr. Sharang Wartikar is an ophthalmologist and a vitreo-retinal consultant practicing in Thane and Mumbai. Dr. Anuja Pethe is a pediatrician and lifestyle medicine physician. Dr Achyuthan Eswar is a yoga and naturopathy physician. Dr Manali Pawan Rao is a family physician, diabetologist and lifestyle expert at Fortis, Mulund, Mumbai. Dr. Varsha Shah is a pediatrician and lifestyle physician who practices preventive and holistic health. Views are personal.

(Edited by Ratan Priya)