Talk:American Academy of Pediatrics supports dairy for lactose intolerant children

PCRM

I had never heard of PCRM before, but from what I could track down on the internet, the line "for medical reasons" seems unsupported, or at the very least controversial. Their name includes "Physicians", but it appears their membership is 90 percent or more non-physicians. The web consensus appears to me to be that they are a pro-vegan diet organisation, with close ties to PETA, who opposes eating animal products for ethical, not medical, reasons. If we include their statement, I think they should be identified clearly as a vegan, non-physician group that opposes all milk (and egg, and meat) consumption for everyone, lactose intolerant or not, and they have ties with PETA. TRWBW 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"for medical reasons": I link to their article [1] in sources, which explains the medical reasons, and gives citations from medical journals.

membership: While their membership is majority non-physician, my understanding is that their recommendations, stands on issues, etc, are formulated by physicians.

pro-vegan: The article states that they are "an organization that promotes a strictly vegetarian diet". "Strictly vegetarian" means no animal consumption. [2]

What do you think? --AlexS 10:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think their name "Physicians Committee ..." implies that they are a committee of physicians, which they are not. To not point that out would be misleading.

That their argument is based on "medical reasons" is a claim they make, not a fact, and should be presented as such -- especially since it is controversial.

I don't know the best way to put it, since saying "they claim for medical reasons" and putting a parenthetical "(not actually a committee of physicans)" after their name is a little harsh. But as it is the article states and implies things about the PCRM that are either POV or just false.

TRWBW 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can clarify the issue, by all means, go ahead. I have just rephrased it to make it clearer. --AlexS 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I took another crack at it. I've stuck to information from wikipedia, so if there is any inaccuracy, it's wikipedia's fault ;). TRWBW 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased it. Made the flow a bit better (first what they say, then more about them). On their associations, Vlasak is in (he was their spokesman), Jonas is out (he cosigned some petition with them). --AlexS 13:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that organisation is better, and the exclusion of Jonas is reasonable. This version lets people know that there is a controversy over the bias of the PCRM that they may want to look into on their own, so it gets the job done. TRWBW 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs citations

Where's the citation for the map colored by 'incidence' of lactose intolerance.NamfFohyr 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Its from the WP article - sources are there... --Errant 08:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)