A2m vs Lion, page-179

In a posting last week I made the point that the Lion milk bottles carrying the words “A2 Protein” in outsize lettering actually only contain about two percent A2 Protein.

Well that’s true, but of course, defenders will point out that the yellow label actually says “Naturally contains A2 Protein”. So there’s no specific claim how much A2 Protein is in the bottle. But the words “naturally contains” are in much smaller type, and if you’re looking at the label in a hurry among many others in a supermarket, they could easily be missed. The smaller type doesn’t help visual clarity and can create the impression that “A2 Protein” describes the bottle’s content..

But that’s not the only problem, or even the main one.

Lion said its new labelling was part of a programme to give its customers better information about its milk, in response to demand revealed by consumer opinion

If this was so, why didn’t the label just say “Contains A2 Protein”, all in equal sized easy-to-read lettering? Or better still, “Contains A1 and A2 protein”? Why indeed?

Well, Lion was pretty clear about what it was trying to achieve. It wasn’t really trying to give clear information, it was trying to win back lost customers.

If it was really trying to inform consumers it would have provided explanatory information referring to the essential issue about the protein status of milk, namely that lots of consumers were wanting A2-only milk.

There was widespread publicity at that time concerning A2MC’s claims that milk containing A1 protein could adversely affect at least some consumers

Many consumers would not have fully absorbed the exact details and subtleties behind the claims and counter-claims, but at least they knew they wanted to buy A2 and not A1, and this preference was hurting A2MC’s rivals, including Lion.

The big yellow labelling on Lion’s milk brands stating that they “naturally contain A2 Protein” is obviously intended to imply some kind of benefit attaching to A2 Protein, presumably a health or nutritional benefit. Otherwise, why would it be given such prominence?

But the irony is that A2 Protein does not in fact give consumers any such benefit at all. If consumers became confused about this, that’s presumably what Lion wanted. It certainly did little to explain the A1-A2 issue.

The only health benefit in this whole equation is if A1 protein is totally excluded from milk. Lion’s milk contains a ratio of A1, just like all the other standard brands available in supermarkets. Hence, no benefit.

Recent clinical trials demonstrate clearly that milk containing A1 adversely affects at least some consumers. In particular, it is associated with digestive problems and may be partly responsible for what many drinkers identify as “lactose intolerance”.

In addition to that, there is growing scientific evidence linking A1 (but not A2) with certain health conditions, for example autism.

The upcoming court case between A2MC and Lion should hopefully help the media and public better understand the A1/A2 issue. And it will be an opportunity for consumers who felt deceived and under-informed by the Lion labelling to have their say.

Incidentally, in a posting last week I stated that Lion had stopped calling its milk “milk”. That’s not correct. In most cases (although not in all) the word “milk” is still on its labels. Apologies