Valuation, page-13

It is standard practice for companies to fund research, otherwise the research would simply not get done. The main thing is that it is peer-reviewed and in high impact factor (i.e. reputable) journals.

A2 has invited independent or commercially funded research even when it is less supportive of health claims. For instance they include studies that are critical (as well as those responding to them) in the scientific information they make available to health care professionals:

https://a2nutrition4professionals.com.au/key-scientific-references/

Why would they do that if they were afraid of an open scientific debate on the topic?

Research on A2 milk benefits has been going on for decades, and the company itself is almost 20 years old. It has made in roads into the market share of large traditional milk companies, many of which are failing and going bankrupt. Companies like Fonterra have turned around and embraced A2 milk.

Now here's a challenge for you Eric.

Explain to me why haven't any of the powerful traditional dairy companies (e.g. Nestle) or lobbies been able to generate research that disproves the A2 health proposition?

You would think they have had sufficient time, motivation and resources to do so - to come up with at least one large, credible clinical trial study with contrary evidence. Note I am not even asking that it is 'independent' - they can throw as much money at it as they wish. Yet it has not happened. Why?

Instead they've all given up and begun offering their own A2 products - even when it contradicts and cannabilises their existing product range.