Low Carb Friends

Low Carb Friends (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/)
-   Main Lowcarb Lobby (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/main-lowcarb-lobby/)
-   -   FDA rumor? (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/main-lowcarb-lobby/797935-fda-rumor.html)

1sweettea1 02-26-2013 07:33 AM

FDA rumor?
 
My friend just told me that the FDA has been petitioned by the dairy industry to allow aspertame and/or sucralose to be added to all dairy products without listing them on the label. This is being touted as a way to boost sales of milk products in schools. Whut!?!
If this is true, what hope do any of us have when it comes to being honestly informed of any food item?
This makes my head hurt.

Anyone else aware of this action?

fiddlejen 02-26-2013 07:40 AM

Even IF it's true (i sure hope not!), I think they'd have to say no to aspartame.

SadieJack 02-26-2013 07:46 AM

It's true. Check it out

https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...dairy-products

NineOhNine 02-26-2013 07:46 AM

They absolutely have to list aspartame, due to phenylketonuria concerns.

juliekaboolie 02-26-2013 07:46 AM

Yes, I've seen this on Facebook. I can't honestly believe they would put aspartame in dairy products given what we have learned about aspartame and it's dangers. Just one more reason to do your best to buy local.

Mistizoom 02-26-2013 07:49 AM

It doesn't mean the ingredients won't be labelled. It just means they can put artifical sweeteners into milk and call it "milk" instead of "milk-based drink" or "reduced calorie milk beverage" or something along those lines. I think it is actually a good thing, my son often picks out the flavored milk at school and I wish there was a sugar-free option for that. With this policy that might be possible. I agree on the aspartame, though, I prefer splenda, stevia or even sugar alcohols.

Knittering 02-26-2013 07:51 AM

Another good reason to not drink milk!

SadieJack 02-26-2013 07:54 AM

If people wanted sweetened milk (with sucralose or aspartame) shouldn't they be allowed to add it themselves? Government is over-stepping here.

emel 02-26-2013 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NineOhNine (Post 16281459)
They absolutely have to list aspartame, due to phenylketonuria concerns.

From what I read in the OP's link, the requirements for listing all ingredients, including aspartame, would remain in place.

It looks like the petition is meant to allow them to add non-caloric sweeteners without labeling the product as "low sugar" or "reduced calorie".

1sweettea1 02-26-2013 08:07 AM

Holy Cow!

Thanks for the link, SadieJack! When I think of aspertame the word, "safe" never comes to mind.

wow

mom23kids 02-26-2013 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knittering (Post 16281476)
Another good reason to not drink milk!

I agree! I don't drink milk and the rest of my family uses less than a gallon a week (and my kids drink water with their school lunches).

Sunny7 02-26-2013 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SadieJack (Post 16281485)
If people wanted sweetened milk (with sucralose or aspartame) shouldn't they be allowed to add it themselves? Government is over-stepping here.

agree --as usual they are over-stepping-----not a surprise----

Rhubarb 02-26-2013 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SadieJack (Post 16281485)
If people wanted sweetened milk (with sucralose or aspartame) shouldn't they be allowed to add it themselves? Government is over-stepping here.

It's not the government over-stepping. It's doing the dairy industry's bidding, by loosening the rules so they can sell this milk without having to call it something else. It's under-stepping, if anything.

On the other hand, there is a lot of legitimate concern about childhood obesity and school districts are trying to find ways to provide food (that kids will eat) that isn't fattening. It's a tough problem, particularly considering how much money is being spent by the junk food industry to get kids hooked on their product.

This article from last Sunday's New York Times on the food industry's conscious attempt to get people hooked on sugar, called "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food" made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Mobird 02-26-2013 01:44 PM

I read the article and it is depressing. I feel bad for kids when I think about how much artificial sweetener many of them are consuming. I don't use artificial sweeteners and never have--I mean it, never, not even a single diet soda or "light" yogurt.

Chocolate milk with artificial sweeteners is not a great way to "promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood obesity." Check out this line of argument:

"IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk—including flavored milk—as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”

1sweettea1 02-26-2013 02:03 PM

That article is as horrible as a train wreck.

I like the fact that the grandkids of "Grandpa Bob" who invented the vile Lunchables have never been allowed to eat them. :(

Thanks for sharing this with us, Rhubarb.

Liz1959 02-26-2013 03:59 PM

OH NO! This says "any suitable sweetener"! They could put HFCS in HWC and Half and Half!

... to allow the use of “any safe and suitable sweetener" in optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk. [1] The petition also requests that FDA similarly amend the standards of identity for 17 other milk and cream products. Those standards (hereinafter referred to as the “additional dairy standards”) are as follows: Acidified milk (§ 131.111), cultured milk (§ 131.112), sweetened condensed milk (§ 131.120), nonfat dry milk (§ 131.125), nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D (§ 131.127), evaporated milk (§ 131.130), dry cream (§ 131.149), heavy cream (§ 131.150), light cream (§ 131.155), light whipping cream (§ 131.157), sour cream (§ 131.160), acidified sour cream (§ 131.162), eggnog (§ 131.170), half-and-half (§ 131.180), yogurt (§ 131.200), lowfat yogurt (§ 131.203), and nonfat yogurt (§ 131.206). The petition asks that the standards of identity for these products be amended to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener in the optional ingredients. [2]

1sweettea1 02-26-2013 05:35 PM

Gah. Is there no end to the manipulation?

synger 02-26-2013 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liz1959 (Post 16282617)
OH NO! This says "any suitable sweetener"! They could put HFCS in HWC and Half and Half!

... to allow the use of “any safe and suitable sweetener" in optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk. [1] The petition also requests that FDA similarly amend the standards of identity for 17 other milk and cream products. Those standards (hereinafter referred to as the “additional dairy standards”) are as follows: Acidified milk (§ 131.111), cultured milk (§ 131.112), sweetened condensed milk (§ 131.120), nonfat dry milk (§ 131.125), nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D (§ 131.127), evaporated milk (§ 131.130), dry cream (§ 131.149), heavy cream (§ 131.150), light cream (§ 131.155), light whipping cream (§ 131.157), sour cream (§ 131.160), acidified sour cream (§ 131.162), eggnog (§ 131.170), half-and-half (§ 131.180), yogurt (§ 131.200), lowfat yogurt (§ 131.203), and nonfat yogurt (§ 131.206). The petition asks that the standards of identity for these products be amended to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener in the optional ingredients. [2]

No, I think they're talking about flavored milks (or flavored other dairy items, listed above). They're really talking about nomenclature. The stuff above relates to a section right below it:

"(e) Nomenclature. The name of the food is “milk”. The name of the food shall be accompanied on the label by a declaration indicating the presence of any characterizing flavoring, as specified in § 101.22 of this chapter."

As someone up-thread said, they want strawberry milk that is flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners rather than sugar or HFCS to still be able to be called "milk", instead of having to be called "reduced calorie milk beverage".

synger 02-26-2013 05:58 PM

Although from reading further articles on this, it looks like hiding the artificial sweeteners is exactly what they're asking for:

» U.S. dairy industry petitions FDA to approve aspartame as hidden additive Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

snopes.com: Aspartame in Milk

Aspartame In Milk A Possibility As Dairy Industry Seeks Approval

kayellr 02-26-2013 06:10 PM

Chill people!

YES, the dairy industry has petitioned to allow using aspartame or other sweeteners in milk. Flavored milks like chocolate or strawberry.

NO, they have not tried to be allowed to use them without the sweeteners being listed in the ingredients.

Not that I would touch the stuff with a 10 foot barge pole, but this is not like the not listing of GMO ingredients. Like most other things, READ THE LABEL. (and of course, be highly suspect of "natural and artificial flavors" which can mean all kinds of bad things)

It's an annoying read, but if you actually read the petition, this is very clear. AND for pete's sake, seeing something on Facebook (!!!) does not make it true. No matter how many likes it gets.

zombiegoat2000 02-26-2013 06:29 PM

:goodpost:[YES, the dairy industry has petitioned to allow using aspartame or other sweeteners in milk. Flavored milks like chocolate or strawberry.

NO, they have not tried to be allowed to use them without the sweeteners being listed in the ingredients.

Not that I would touch the stuff with a 10 foot barge pole, but this is not like the not listing of GMO ingredients. Like most other things, READ THE LABEL. (and of course, be highly suspect of "natural and artificial flavors" which can mean all kinds of bad things)

It's an annoying read, but if you actually read the petition, this is very clear. AND for pete's sake, seeing something on Facebook (!!!) does not make it true. No matter how many likes it gets.[/QUOTE]

:goodpost:

PaminKY 02-27-2013 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhubarb (Post 16282259)
This article from last Sunday's New York Times on the food industry's conscious attempt to get people hooked on sugar, called "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food" made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.



Thanks for the link to that article. It was disturbing but also very eye-opening. I'm currently reading a book called Food Addiction: The Body Knows and I'm surprised what does constitute a food addiction. With the food industry focusing on that weakness in the population to make a buck just terrifies me.

1sweettea1 02-27-2013 09:07 AM

facebook? I don't do facebook but thanks for the inclusion here. ? :dunno:

Strawberry 02-27-2013 10:32 AM

The problem they are trying to deal with is that the government mandates that school children be served a dairy serving - typically milk - with each school meal. Currently most of that gets thrown away because the kids dont like it.

They are trying to make milk more appealing to children with flavored milk. But then they run into the problem that sugary flavored milk contributes to the childhood obesity issue they are supposed to be fighting.

Enter artificially sweetened flavored milk!

I personally dont care if they offer artificially sweetened flavored milk. It will have to be on the label. Its actually already made and sold to a limited degree, even though its not popular in schools.

I really dont see where they are planning on sneaking aspertame into heavy whipped cream, and not labelling it. Lets not get overly dramatic.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:55 AM.