Aspartame in Milk?
Replies
-
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.
I'm so glad you agree with me.
Penecillin, in its original form, is useless to us. Even though it came from nature.
Science, in a lab, helped it to become the greatest life saver ever made.
Just like science, in a lab, figured out some combination of amino acids that tastes sweet to our taste buds. Those amino acids occur in higher concentrations in chicken, but since it came from a lab many people are afraid.
I'm just saying, again: aspartame is safe to consume.
Avoiding all the extremism, I do want to add that it may be safe for some, or even most, of the population BUT it is also quite harmful to others. 1 cup of diet coke makes my mother's face feel numb, and it makes my eyes twitch uncontrollably. I have no known 'allergy' to aspartame, but I don't particularly enjoy the neurological effects it has on me or my mother. In this way, I would consider it to be unsafe for both of us. I'm just trying to say that you cannot generalize it as safe or dangerous, people's reactions to both natural and synthetic substances vary greatly.0 -
I still can not understand why anyone would consume it,
Because it tastes good.
I think that's a matter of opinion!
Indeed it is. Surely you're aware that different people have different opinions.
0 -
If its really because they want to prevent obesity then they should stop making flavoured milk and only offer whole milk. It's quite worrying where the food industry is heading.
Bam. This, right here.0 -
If this is approved, I guess I'm going to be just an ovo-vegetarian....0
-
If this is approved, I guess I'm going to be just an ovo-vegetarian....
You could just find a friend with a cow!0 -
I still can not understand why anyone would consume it,
Because it tastes good.
I think that's a matter of opinion!
Indeed it is. Surely you're aware that different people have different opinions.
And therefore you should respect mine as I respect yours.0 -
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 Could get down with that
Sincerely,
Diet Coke and Sweet N Low Junkie0 -
I still can not understand why anyone would consume it,
Because it tastes good.
I think that's a matter of opinion!
Indeed it is. Surely you're aware that different people have different opinions.
And therefore you should respect mine as I respect yours.
I'm not even sure what your opinion is. Do you think that this change (allowing milk products with artificial sweeteners to be sold the same way as milk products with added sugar or HFCS) should be allowed?0 -
I still can not understand why anyone would consume it,
Because it tastes good.
I think that's a matter of opinion!
Indeed it is. Surely you're aware that different people have different opinions.
And therefore you should respect mine as I respect yours.
I'm not even sure what your opinion is. Do you think that this change (allowing milk products with artificial sweeteners to be sold the same way as milk products with added sugar or HFCS) should be allowed?
Quite honestly I can't see the point in restricting either, they shouldn't be making either product in the first place. Milk should be milk. If they are adding things then as long as its stated fully on the label then I don't see what difference it makes what they put in it. Aside from the fact that many people won't know what it is they are consuming, most never even read the label.
I do however believe that the majority of obese Americans need educating in what is and is not healthy. I do not consider milk with "added HFCS or Aspartame etc" to be healthy.
Edit: so yes I think it may as well be....what difference does it make?0 -
I still can not understand why anyone would consume it,
Because it tastes good.
I think that's a matter of opinion!
Indeed it is. Surely you're aware that different people have different opinions.
And therefore you should respect mine as I respect yours.
I'm not even sure what your opinion is. Do you think that this change (allowing milk products with artificial sweeteners to be sold the same way as milk products with added sugar or HFCS) should be allowed?
Quite honestly I can't see the point in restricting either, they shouldn't be making either product in the first place. Milk should be milk. If they are adding things then as long as its stated fully on the label then I don't see what difference it makes what they put in it. Aside from the fact that many people won't know what it is they are consuming, most never even read the label.
I do however believe that the majority of obese Americans need educating in what is and is not healthy. I do not consider milk with "added HFCS or Aspartame etc" to be healthy.
Edit: so yes I think it may as well be....what difference does it make?
The rule makes a difference to me personally because I'd like to buy these products. Your opinion makes a difference to me because it's hard to respect an opinion when I don't know what it is 0 -
If this is approved, I guess I'm going to be just an ovo-vegetarian....
This is not for milk - it's for flavored milk and sweetened milk products0 -
I never knew people had such strong feelings about milk.0
-
If this is approved, I guess I'm going to be just an ovo-vegetarian....
This is not for milk - it's for flavored milk and sweetened milk products
And other dairy products, like whipped cream in a can.0 -
I still can not understand why anyone would consume it,
Because it tastes good.
I think that's a matter of opinion!
Indeed it is. Surely you're aware that different people have different opinions.
And therefore you should respect mine as I respect yours.
I'm not even sure what your opinion is. Do you think that this change (allowing milk products with artificial sweeteners to be sold the same way as milk products with added sugar or HFCS) should be allowed?
Quite honestly I can't see the point in restricting either, they shouldn't be making either product in the first place. Milk should be milk. If they are adding things then as long as its stated fully on the label then I don't see what difference it makes what they put in it. Aside from the fact that many people won't know what it is they are consuming, most never even read the label.
I do however believe that the majority of obese Americans need educating in what is and is not healthy. I do not consider milk with "added HFCS or Aspartame etc" to be healthy.
Edit: so yes I think it may as well be....what difference does it make?
The rule makes a difference to me personally because I'd like to buy these products. Your opinion makes a difference to me because it's hard to respect an opinion when I don't know what it is
Sorry...I meant what difference does it make whether they add one or the other. I don't see why they consider one to be worse than the other and therefore why restrict aspartame and not HFCS.0 -
Aspartame is a neurotoxin and it has been demonstrated to kill brain cells and many scientists believe that it induces brain tumors. I once read that airline pilots are not allowed to drink Aspartame--sweetened products while on duty.
The whole approval process for Aspartame was a totally corrupt farce. Read about it and weep:
"In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in their brand name, NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it 'might induce brain tumors.'
The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld [later, Secretary of Defense under Bush Jr.] vow to 'call in his markers,' to get it approved.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame."0 -
So, I could be mistaken here, and this might have already been covered (I got sidetracked while I was typing this up), but isn't this all about the verbiage on the front label of the container? So, aspartame is currently not allowable, but if a company adds it to [for the purpose of demonstration] chocolate milk, they can no longer call it "chocolate milk." But they can call it "chocolate-flavored dairy beverage." Whereas, with sugar and HFCS being allowed, if it has sugar and/or HFCS in it they can call it "chocolate milk."
So if the way I currently understand this is correct, they are wanting to use aspartame as a sweetener in chocolate milk and still be legally able to call it "chocolate milk" - not "chocolate-flavored dairy beverage," which understandably might make a lot of consumers squirm. It's not got anything to do with omitting aspartame from the ingredient label altogether; i.e., you wouldn't look at the label and see, "Ingredients: whole milk, cocoa powder" - you'd still see "whole milk, cocoa powder, aspartame" (and whatever else goes into it).
The word "milk" is the word at stake here. Not "aspartame." Love it or hate it, they're just wanting to be able to market "diet chocolate milk" as a thing, instead of having to call it "reduced-calorie flavored dairy beverage." Which kind of sounds like Soylent Green.0 -
I still can not understand why anyone would consume it,
Because it tastes good.
I think that's a matter of opinion!
Indeed it is. Surely you're aware that different people have different opinions.
And therefore you should respect mine as I respect yours.
I'm not even sure what your opinion is. Do you think that this change (allowing milk products with artificial sweeteners to be sold the same way as milk products with added sugar or HFCS) should be allowed?
Quite honestly I can't see the point in restricting either, they shouldn't be making either product in the first place. Milk should be milk. If they are adding things then as long as its stated fully on the label then I don't see what difference it makes what they put in it. Aside from the fact that many people won't know what it is they are consuming, most never even read the label.
I do however believe that the majority of obese Americans need educating in what is and is not healthy. I do not consider milk with "added HFCS or Aspartame etc" to be healthy.
Edit: so yes I think it may as well be....what difference does it make?
The rule makes a difference to me personally because I'd like to buy these products. Your opinion makes a difference to me because it's hard to respect an opinion when I don't know what it is
Sorry...I meant what difference does it make whether they add one or the other. I don't see why they consider one to be worse than the other and therefore why restrict aspartame and not HFCS.
Ah. I avoid added sugar because of the calories, but have no problem drinking aspartame. It has no effect on me I can discern and have seen no evidence of any negative long-term effects with moderate use.0 -
Aspartame is a neurotoxin and it has been demonstrated to kill brain cells and many scientists believe that it induces brain tumors. I once read that airline pilots are not allowed to drink Aspartame--sweetened products while on duty.
The whole approval process for Aspartame was a totally corrupt farce. Read about it and weep:
"In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in their brand name, NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it 'might induce brain tumors.'
The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld [later, Secretary of Defense under Bush Jr.] vow to 'call in his markers,' to get it approved.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame."
Just FYI, this isn't about aspartame in particular. It's about any zero-calorie sweetener, such as sucralose, stevia, etc.
The law does not allow any calorie-free sweetener to be used in milk.0 -
So, I could be mistaken here, and this might have already been covered (I got sidetracked while I was typing this up), but isn't this all about the verbiage on the front label of the container? So, aspartame is currently not allowable, but if a company adds it to [for the purpose of demonstration] chocolate milk, they can no longer call it "chocolate milk." But they can call it "chocolate-flavored dairy beverage." Whereas, with sugar and HFCS being allowed, if it has sugar and/or HFCS in it they can call it "chocolate milk."
So if the way I currently understand this is correct, they are wanting to use aspartame as a sweetener in chocolate milk and still be legally able to call it "chocolate milk" - not "chocolate-flavored dairy beverage," which understandably might make a lot of consumers squirm. It's not got anything to do with omitting aspartame from the ingredient label altogether; i.e., you wouldn't look at the label and see, "Ingredients: whole milk, cocoa powder" - you'd still see "whole milk, cocoa powder, aspartame" (and whatever else goes into it).
The word "milk" is the word at stake here. Not "aspartame." Love it or hate it, they're just wanting to be able to market "diet chocolate milk" as a thing, instead of having to call it "reduced-calorie flavored dairy beverage." Which kind of sounds like Soylent Green.
It isn't even that strict: they just have to put "reduced sugar" on the front. Kids don't want no diet food!0 -
Aspartame will NEVER reduce childhood obesity. The only thing that will do that is to get the concentrated sugars and simple carbs out of their diets.0
-
Aspartame is a neurotoxin and it has been demonstrated to kill brain cells and many scientists believe that it induces brain tumors. I once read that airline pilots are not allowed to drink Aspartame--sweetened products while on duty.
The whole approval process for Aspartame was a totally corrupt farce. Read about it and weep:
"In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in their brand name, NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it 'might induce brain tumors.'
The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld [later, Secretary of Defense under Bush Jr.] vow to 'call in his markers,' to get it approved.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame."
This ^^^^^ exactly this!!0 -
-
Aspartame is a neurotoxin and it has been demonstrated to kill brain cells and many scientists believe that it induces brain tumors. I once read that airline pilots are not allowed to drink Aspartame--sweetened products while on duty.
The whole approval process for Aspartame was a totally corrupt farce. Read about it and weep:
"In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in their brand name, NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it 'might induce brain tumors.'
The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld [later, Secretary of Defense under Bush Jr.] vow to 'call in his markers,' to get it approved.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame."
This ^^^^^ exactly this BS!!
Fixed it for you.0 -
The longest trial being for five years with consideration to cancer but the other studies being over much shorter periods of time with much smaller groups of people? Forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm very tired but what if these tests were done over much longer periods of time? Look at all the drugs that were deemed safe after short periods of testing but then many years later have been linked to causing cancer and diseases?
I'm off to bed, I will be interested to see what the final ruling is on aspartame in milk....I won't however be consuming it myself either way.0 -
Aspartame is a neurotoxin and it has been demonstrated to kill brain cells and many scientists believe that it induces brain tumors. I once read that airline pilots are not allowed to drink Aspartame--sweetened products while on duty.
The whole approval process for Aspartame was a totally corrupt farce. Read about it and weep:
"In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in their brand name, NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it 'might induce brain tumors.'
The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld [later, Secretary of Defense under Bush Jr.] vow to 'call in his markers,' to get it approved.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame."
This ^^^^^ exactly this BS!!
Fixed it for you.
It is BS that your government lies to you!0 -
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.
i don't know about you, but i don't plan on eating penicillin, EVER.
You're kidding right? Let's hope you never need one of these antibiotics then.... *rolls eyes*
· Penicillin G
· Penicillin V
· Penicillin VK
· Nafcillin
· Oxacillin
· Cloxacillin
· Dicloxacillin
· Ampicillin
· Amoxicillin
· Bacampacillin
· Carbenicillin indanyl
· Ticarcillin
· Mezlocillin
· Piperacillin
Cephalosporin drugs that are closely related to Penicillin - it is not 100%, but penicillin allergic can be allergic as well. So some drugs in each class are:
· Cephalothin
· Cefamandole
· Cefotaxime
· Cefepime
this whole thing started with talking about food. you know things that we injest when we get hungry. not about antibiotics that are prescribed to you for one reason or another.0 -
Ridiculous. If it's not dangerous, then why fight tooth and nail to avoid putting a label on the product? If people want to CHOOSE not to consume aspartame, that is their right. Companies shouldn't be allowed to sneak ingredients in without telling people, whether it's 'safe' or not.0
-
Ridiculous. If it's not dangerous, then why fight tooth and nail to avoid putting a label on the product? If people want to CHOOSE not to consume aspartame, that is their right. Companies shouldn't be allowed to sneak ingredients in without telling people, whether it's 'safe' or not.
They just want to be able to call it milk. No one is trying to play "Hide the Aspartame!"0 -
Ridiculous. If it's not dangerous, then why fight tooth and nail to avoid putting a label on the product? If people want to CHOOSE not to consume aspartame, that is their right. Companies shouldn't be allowed to sneak ingredients in without telling people, whether it's 'safe' or not.
Um, what? They're not allowed to add zero-calorie sweeteners without putting it on the label. That's not what this is about. As it is now, they're not allowed to add zero-calorie sweeteners period.
It's not about aspartame only, either. They are prohibited from putting stevia, sucralose, etc, into milk and still calling it milk.
They can, however, add sugar and HFCS to milk and still call it milk.
It's nonsensical.0 -
Ridiculous. If it's not dangerous, then why fight tooth and nail to avoid putting a label on the product? If people want to CHOOSE not to consume aspartame, that is their right. Companies shouldn't be allowed to sneak ingredients in without telling people, whether it's 'safe' or not.
They just want to be able to call it milk. No one is trying to play "Hide the Aspartame!"
By putting aspartame into milk and not labeling it in the ingredients list, they certainly are playing 'hide the aspartame'. If I buy honey and and the ingredients list says "honey," but the company actually put corn syrup in that honey (which does happen), I'm going to be upset because I am not getting what I thought I bought. I am trying to make informed decisions about what I put in my body, and when something is missing from the ingredient list, then that's dishonest.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions