Aspartame in Milk?

2456789

Replies

  • Shock_Wave
    Shock_Wave Posts: 1,573 Member
    Obviously aspartame would be in the ingredients if it was added.

    But what's so special about milk products that you can't put aspartame or sucralose in them? What's the reasoning there? You can put it in any other product, as long as you list it in the ingredients.

    If that's the case then I don't have a problem with it. The wording in the article implied that they're not changing the label.... which implies that it won't be in the ingredients....? or is this some Brit Eng. vs Am Eng thing?

    lol Reading is hard for some people.

    Yes I'm dyslexic, would you like to take the p*** some more about it?

    I was agreeing with you with your quote to tiger boy.
  • Iron_Pheonix
    Iron_Pheonix Posts: 191 Member
    aspartame = evil.

    Your exaggeration is quite over the top.

    Things like rape and genocide are evil.

    Aspartame has been proven to be safe to consume.


    I wouldn't even go there, that thread has been rehashed a hundred times! A great deal of us consider it to be a fairly nasty product. Especially those of us that eat food that lived or grew. No aspartame trees that I know of?
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    I'm intolerant to aspartame, it makes me ill. So no, I really don't agree AT ALL with it going in food without it being on the label

    Also, I don't get this whole thing about putting *anything* in food without listing it on the ingredients.... for every food or additive that exists, you can probably find someone, somewhere who's allergic or intolerant to it. And people have the right to choose what they eat and don't eat. They can put what they like in processed food as far as I'm concerned, but I at the very least want to be able to read the list of ingredients and make my own choice about whether or not I eat food that contains any particular ingredient.

    Unless I'm missing something major, no one said anything about putting aspartame into anything without putting it on the label.

    It says "without changing the label" - that's an ambiguous phrase. The list of ingredients is on the label, so to me "without changing the label" implies they're not going to put it on the list of ingredients. From the responses on the thread, a lot of people took it to mean that. Maybe it's a difference in British or American English...? or maybe it's just a poorly written article (a good writer avoids ambiguous phrases).

    Yes, see my above posts. The article in the OP is pretty horrid. I linked to a better one:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business
  • cscheiern
    cscheiern Posts: 45
    here is a link to comment on this to the FDA, I dont know if it will make any difference in the end, but...

    https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products

    and the article from a different place:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/u-s-dairy-industry-petitions-fda-to-approve-aspartame-as-hidden-unlabeled-additive-in-milk-yogurt-eggnog-and-cream.html
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    If that's the case then I don't have a problem with it. The wording in the article implied that they're not changing the label.... which implies that it won't be in the ingredients....? or is this some Brit Eng. vs Am Eng thing?

    No, what they mean by "changing the label" is that, if they put artificial sweeteners, they're not allowed to call it milk anymore. So you can sell "chocolate milk" that has a ton of HFCS poured into it, but you can't call it "chocolate milk" if you use any aspartame.

    That's what this is about.

    This article is much more clear:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business

    Okay, I wasn't aware that they wouldn't be allowed to call it "milk" if they added artificial sweeteners. That's kind of weird. Is that the law in the UK too?

    I agree, i.e. double standard, can add HFCS but not articifial sweetener.
  • Iron_Pheonix
    Iron_Pheonix Posts: 191 Member
    why on earth would you want to remove its natural sugars and replace with artificial ingredients?

    They don't want to do that.

    They want to *add* sweetener and still be able to call it milk.

    Right now they can add high fructose corn syrup and still call it milk. If they add aspartame, they can't call it milk.


    Honestly I don't understand that either, why add anything to milk? Is it not sweet enough without adding sweeteners?
  • concordancia
    concordancia Posts: 5,320 Member
    Other articles refer to the "front label". Dairy products have to include "reduced sugar" on the front if they use artificial sweeteners. The ingredients list must be complete, no matter what.

    Since people know this, non dieters tend to avoid reduced anything, as do all people avoiding artificial sweeteners.
  • rocket_ace
    rocket_ace Posts: 380 Member
    i don't understand....are we saying that regular milk you buy in the store has added sugar in it but doesn't list it on the ingredients? wha?
  • LuckyLeprechaun
    LuckyLeprechaun Posts: 6,296 Member
    aspartame = evil.

    Your exaggeration is quite over the top.

    Things like rape and genocide are evil.

    Aspartame has been proven to be safe to consume.


    I wouldn't even go there, that thread has been rehashed a hundred times! A great deal of us consider it to be a fairly nasty product. Especially those of us that eat food that lived or grew. No aspartame trees that I know of?

    There aren't any penecillin trees either.

    Just because a lab is the origin, there is no reason to fear the product.

    Again, aspartame has been proven to be safe to consume. Unless you have PK. Which is very rare.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Obviously aspartame would be in the ingredients if it was added.

    But what's so special about milk products that you can't put aspartame or sucralose in them? What's the reasoning there? You can put it in any other product, as long as you list it in the ingredients.

    If that's the case then I don't have a problem with it. The wording in the article implied that they're not changing the label.... which implies that it won't be in the ingredients....? or is this some Brit Eng. vs Am Eng thing?

    lol Reading is hard for some people.

    Yes I'm dyslexic, would you like to take the p*** some more about it?

    I was agreeing with you with your quote to tiger boy.

    Sorry, I thought you were taking the mick because I misunderstood it initially (see my first post).

    thanks for the clarification
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    why on earth would you want to remove its natural sugars and replace with artificial ingredients?

    They don't want to do that.

    They want to *add* sweetener and still be able to call it milk.

    Right now they can add high fructose corn syrup and still call it milk. If they add aspartame, they can't call it milk.


    Honestly I don't understand that either, why add anything to milk? Is it not sweet enough without adding sweeteners?

    Go to your local store and look in the milk section. You'll see plenty of flavored milk - chocolate, strawberry, vanilla, banana. Those all have added sugar.

    What the dairy industry wants to do is make these products, like "strawberry milk," by adding artificial sweeteners instead of sugar or HFCS.

    Obviously people buy these products, so I guess it's not sweet enough for some people.
  • Iron_Pheonix
    Iron_Pheonix Posts: 191 Member
    It's like Frankenmilk! Lol. Why can't they just leave it alone and stop trying to improve on nature?
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    i don't understand....are we saying that regular milk you buy in the store has added sugar in it but doesn't list it on the ingredients? wha?

    see the above posts, the article is poorly worded. they just want to be able to call it "milk" - it will be in the list of ingredients
  • LuckyLeprechaun
    LuckyLeprechaun Posts: 6,296 Member
    i don't understand....are we saying that regular milk you buy in the store has added sugar in it but doesn't list it on the ingredients? wha?

    Chocolate Milk has a lot of sugar, or high fructose corn syrup. The proposal is to use aspartame instead, to reduce the calorie content.

    This would be a safe substitution for nearly all individuals.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    It's like Frankenmilk! Lol. Why can't they just leave it alone and stop trying to improve on nature?

    Well, if we "stopped trying to improve on nature" you wouldn't have that cell phone, the internet, ibuprofen, penicillin, a car, etc etc etc.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    i don't understand....are we saying that regular milk you buy in the store has added sugar in it but doesn't list it on the ingredients? wha?

    Chocolate Milk has a lot of sugar, or high fructose corn syrup. The proposal is to use aspartame instead, to reduce the calorie content.

    This would be a safe substitution for nearly all individuals.

    I agree. I think it's a fine idea.

    Don't drink it if you don't want. I'd like to be able to get some strawberry milk that doesn't have 2-3 times the calories of regular milk. I don't mind the aspartame.

    All the people complaining don't drink strawberry milk loaded with HFCS anyway. It's not like they're going to start pouring aspartame into your 2%.
  • Iron_Pheonix
    Iron_Pheonix Posts: 191 Member
    why on earth would you want to remove its natural sugars and replace with artificial ingredients?

    They don't want to do that.

    They want to *add* sweetener and still be able to call it milk.

    Right now they can add high fructose corn syrup and still call it milk. If they add aspartame, they can't call it milk.

    Honestly I don't understand that either, why add anything to milk? Is it not sweet enough without adding sweeteners?

    Go to your local store and look in the milk section. You'll see plenty of flavored milk - chocolate, strawberry, vanilla, banana. Those all have added sugar.

    What the dairy industry wants to do is make these products, like "strawberry milk," by adding artificial sweeteners instead of sugar or HFCS.

    Obviously people buy these products, so I guess it's not sweet enough for some people.

    Well surely that's a bigger problem. All labels should state full ingredients, here in the UK if its less than a certain percentage of the product it doesn't have to be listed. I don't eat or consume any of these products- I don't like them and I don't want it in my body however.......if I did, I would expect it to be listed.

    Quite frankly it wouldn't bother me what they call it as long as its listed.
  • ldrosophila
    ldrosophila Posts: 7,512 Member
    I cant believe they wouldnt list it in the ingredients. I would hope the FDA would still require listing of aspartame. Looking at my diet soda and it is listed on the side that it contains phenylalanine. I would think to avoid litigation that they would do this for milk.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    why on earth would you want to remove its natural sugars and replace with artificial ingredients?

    They don't want to do that.

    They want to *add* sweetener and still be able to call it milk.

    Right now they can add high fructose corn syrup and still call it milk. If they add aspartame, they can't call it milk.

    Honestly I don't understand that either, why add anything to milk? Is it not sweet enough without adding sweeteners?

    Go to your local store and look in the milk section. You'll see plenty of flavored milk - chocolate, strawberry, vanilla, banana. Those all have added sugar.

    What the dairy industry wants to do is make these products, like "strawberry milk," by adding artificial sweeteners instead of sugar or HFCS.

    Obviously people buy these products, so I guess it's not sweet enough for some people.

    Well surely that's a bigger problem. All labels should state full ingredients, here in the UK if its less than a certain percentage of the product it doesn't have to be listed. I don't eat or consume any of these products- I don't like them and I don't want it in my body however.......if I did, I would expect it to be listed.

    Quite frankly it wouldn't bother me what they call it as long as its listed.

    The artificial sweeteners will be listed in the ingredients no matter what. If aspartame is added to a milk product, it will still be listed in the ingredients.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    I cant believe they wouldnt list it in the ingredients

    They would.

    AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
  • Iron_Pheonix
    Iron_Pheonix Posts: 191 Member
    It's like Frankenmilk! Lol. Why can't they just leave it alone and stop trying to improve on nature?

    Well, if we "stopped trying to improve on nature" you wouldn't have that cell phone, the internet, ibuprofen, penicillin, a car, etc etc etc.

    I was referring to food- that's what the thread is about? How can you take something that was created by nature and improve on it? Phones, cars etc weren't ever created by nature.
  • blu_meanie_ca
    blu_meanie_ca Posts: 352 Member
    Unless I'm missing something major, no one said anything about putting aspartame into anything without putting it on the label.



    ..........and not change the label.................
  • LuckyLeprechaun
    LuckyLeprechaun Posts: 6,296 Member
    It's like Frankenmilk! Lol. Why can't they just leave it alone and stop trying to improve on nature?

    Well, if we "stopped trying to improve on nature" you wouldn't have that cell phone, the internet, ibuprofen, penicillin, a car, etc etc etc.

    I was referring to food- that's what the thread is about? How can you take something that was created by nature and improve on it? Phones, cars etc weren't ever created by nature.

    penecillin was.
    Then we made it better, in the lab, by using science.

    Science is good. Chemicals are all around you. It's OK.
  • socajam
    socajam Posts: 2,530 Member
    I am not holding my breath about the FDA. Any member of the population with an ounce of brain is fully aware that the FDA is bought by the food industry. The FDA is not concerned about the population and what ingredients in the food are doing to us.

    This will definitely push me further to making my almond milk on a regular basis. I do not drink almond/rice/coconut milk from the stores, too many chemicals that I cannot pronounce. Homemade almond milk have hardly any calories, or if I am really desperate for cereal, I will just use carrot juice.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    It's like Frankenmilk! Lol. Why can't they just leave it alone and stop trying to improve on nature?

    Well, if we "stopped trying to improve on nature" you wouldn't have that cell phone, the internet, ibuprofen, penicillin, a car, etc etc etc.

    I was referring to food- that's what the thread is about? How can you take something that was created by nature and improve on it? Phones, cars etc weren't ever created by nature.

    You can improve on a tree by turning it into a desk. You can improve on a hunk of dirt by extracting silicon from it and making computer chips from them.

    Ultimately, everything we have comes from nature. All the good things we have in life are a result of man improving on nature.

    Cottage cheese doesn't just happen. We have to make it by improving on semolina. Etc etc.

    Regardless, you don't even consume the products the article is talking about in the first place. I doubt if you're buying much HFCS-filled chocolate milk.
  • Iron_Pheonix
    Iron_Pheonix Posts: 191 Member
    aspartame = evil.

    Your exaggeration is quite over the top.

    Things like rape and genocide are evil.

    Aspartame has been proven to be safe to consume.


    I wouldn't even go there, that thread has been rehashed a hundred times! A great deal of us consider it to be a fairly nasty product. Especially those of us that eat food that lived or grew. No aspartame trees that I know of?

    There aren't any penecillin trees either.

    Just because a lab is the origin, there is no reason to fear the product.

    Again, aspartame has been proven to be safe to consume. Unless you have PK. Which is very rare.

    Actually penicillin comes from a fungi- I.e. it's origin is from nature. You can believe everything your government tells you, I choose to question their motives.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Unless I'm missing something major, no one said anything about putting aspartame into anything without putting it on the label.



    ..........and not change the label.................

    Read the other article. By "change the label" they mean "stop calling it milk."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business
  • Iron_Pheonix
    Iron_Pheonix Posts: 191 Member
    It's like Frankenmilk! Lol. Why can't they just leave it alone and stop trying to improve on nature?

    Well, if we "stopped trying to improve on nature" you wouldn't have that cell phone, the internet, ibuprofen, penicillin, a car, etc etc etc.

    I was referring to food- that's what the thread is about? How can you take something that was created by nature and improve on it? Phones, cars etc weren't ever created by nature.

    You can improve on a tree by turning it into a desk. You can improve on a hunk of dirt by extracting silicon from it and making computer chips from them.

    Ultimately, everything we have comes from nature. All the good things we have in life are a result of man improving on nature.

    Cottage cheese doesn't just happen. We have to make it by improving on semolina. Etc etc.

    Regardless, you don't even consume the products the article is talking about in the first place. I doubt if you're buying much HFCS-filled chocolate milk.

    You think a tree looks better as a desk? How can that be improvement? It's not improvement, it's destruction of our natural environment.

    No I don't why would I want to?
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    you mean its NOT already in chocolate milk?
  • socajam
    socajam Posts: 2,530 Member
    By whom ???????????

Categories