Aspartame in Milk?

danasings

I'm not gonna read this whole thread, but I hope you know that dairy cows are fed copious amounts of jelly beans to sweeten their milk.

That is all.

Not just jelly beans...STALE jelly beans. :sick:

AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Alliwan

Oh, they don't gots to know about it. It could be our milk.

BWAHHAHAHA love that movie!

neanderthin

show previous quotes

Maybe I'm confused? From what I read in the original article:

Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".

Isn't that what's happening? I'd like some clarification

The original article is terrible. Here is a better one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business

They are allowed to add sugar or HFCS to milk and still call it milk. For example "chocolate milk" always has HFCS or sugar added to it.

They want to be able to add zero-calorie sweeteners like aspartame, Stevia, etc, instead of HFCS/sugar and still sell the items as "chocolate milk." Right now, doing so is illegal.

I think it would be good to be able to buy "chocolate milk" that has aspartame or stevia instead of HFCS added to it.

Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! As long as it's labeled (cane sugar, HFCS, stevia, aspartame), then that's fine. As long as the consumer can see what's in the milk and decide based on that. Personally I don't consume aspartame because it gives me headaches and I try to avoid artificial sweeteners, but if someone who is, say, diabetic wants to buy chocolate milk, then it's a good option to have!

Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners. I do not use sugar, simple carbs or artificial sweeteners and I'm still here! In fact, my health has significantly improved.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1946186

Also protein is highly insulinogenic, best avoid that too

Protein is essential to the body.....aspartame is most definitely not! Nor are carbohydrates/sugar because the body creates it.

But in relation to this comment, "Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners", that aspartame should be avoided by type II's because it spikes insulin (even though it doesn't), then by the same logic, protein should be avoided too, since it spikes insulin

My doc confirmed that the research shows that artificial sweeteners DO spike insulin levels. Of course, all research is suspect now because it is often "science for hire" these days.

So how did your doc wade through all the literature to determine which was suspect and which was legit?

Not to mention we need calories for an insulin spike to occur, 0 calories, 0 spike.

An article published in the journal "Hormone and Metabolic Research" in 1987 reported that the artificial sweetener acesulfame-K increases the release of insulin. Until more is known about the long-term effects, I would give them a wide berth.

That's nice. Here's a more recent study in 2005

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16280432
Functional magnetic resonance imaging of human hypothalamic responses to sweet taste and calories.

RESULTS:

Glucose ingestion resulted in a prolonged and significant signal decrease in the upper hypothalamus (P < 0.05). Water, aspartame, and maltodextrin had no such effect. Glucose and maltodextrin ingestions resulted in similar increases in blood glucose and insulin concentrations. However, only glucose triggered an early rise in insulin concentrations. Aspartame did not trigger any insulin response.
CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings suggest that both sweet taste and energy content are required for a hypothalamic response. The combination of sweet taste and energy content could be crucial in triggering adaptive responses to sweetened beverages.

minionofevil

I sure hope they don't. I'm not much of a milk drinker, but I do use it for cereal and cooking and stuff, and I am allergic to aspartame.

renku

Great, with the antibiotics and growth hormones, why not add more crap to milk? Why not just add chalk and water to fill it out as well

Sarauk2sf

I sure hope they don't. I'm not much of a milk drinker, but I do use it for cereal and cooking and stuff, and I am allergic to aspartame.

They are not talking about plain milk.

Iron_Pheonix

show previous quotes

Maybe I'm confused? From what I read in the original article:

Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".

Isn't that what's happening? I'd like some clarification

The original article is terrible. Here is a better one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business

They are allowed to add sugar or HFCS to milk and still call it milk. For example "chocolate milk" always has HFCS or sugar added to it.

They want to be able to add zero-calorie sweeteners like aspartame, Stevia, etc, instead of HFCS/sugar and still sell the items as "chocolate milk." Right now, doing so is illegal.

I think it would be good to be able to buy "chocolate milk" that has aspartame or stevia instead of HFCS added to it.

Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! As long as it's labeled (cane sugar, HFCS, stevia, aspartame), then that's fine. As long as the consumer can see what's in the milk and decide based on that. Personally I don't consume aspartame because it gives me headaches and I try to avoid artificial sweeteners, but if someone who is, say, diabetic wants to buy chocolate milk, then it's a good option to have!

Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners. I do not use sugar, simple carbs or artificial sweeteners and I'm still here! In fact, my health has significantly improved.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1946186

Also protein is highly insulinogenic, best avoid that too

Protein is essential to the body.....aspartame is most definitely not! Nor are carbohydrates/sugar because the body creates it.

But in relation to this comment, "Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners", that aspartame should be avoided by type II's because it spikes insulin (even though it doesn't), then by the same logic, protein should be avoided too, since it spikes insulin

Technically protein will not spike insulin to the same extent that consumption of a carbohydrate/sugar will. I don't think you can group the two together. A diabetic can consume a great deal more protein without a rise in blood sugars in comparison to carbohydrate. Lets remember a diabetic does not respond to insulin.

Depends on the protein and carb in question

Holt et al. An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 66, 1264-1276

http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html

also

The insulinogenic effect of whey protein is partially mediated by a direct effect of amino acids and GIP on β-cells

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/48

Your using whey protein as an example? Of course whey protein (assuming in powdered form) will raise insulin. That's the whold purpose of it being consumed in that form. Compare chicken to white rice and tell me it gives the same response?

How about grilled steak or steamed fish? See the first link I put in the response

And I think you're missing the point, the comment I responded to said diabetics should avoid something since it spikes insulin, I am giving examples of foods that spike insulin, so she can respond and say if they should also be avoided due to the dreaded insulin spike

In your first link, in the conclusion it states that when protein and fat are consumed with the addition of carbohydrates that there is always an increased insulin response. It therefore still confirms that consuming these items without carbohydrate is therefore going to cause a much smaller insulin response.

No I do understand your point but you therefore need to quote research that directly corresponds to whether aspartame increases insulin or not.

I'm guessing you didn't actually read through it :ohwell:

And why would you assume that? I read the whole thing. Did you?

Iron_Pheonix

To quote from that study:

"Collectively, the findings imply that typical Western diets are likely to be significantly more insulinogenic than more traditional diets based on less refined foods.

As observed in previous studies, consumption of protein or fat with carbohydrate in creases insulin secretion compared with the insulinogenic ef fect of these nutrients alone"

Therefore despite protein causing an insulin response (like all foods) it is still recognised that when consumed with a carbohydrate source that the insulin response is increased. A person wishing to reduce blood sugar levels & insulin response will be more successful if they lower their carbohydrate intake. This study in its conclusion also states that further research is required and note that the purpose of this study was to challenge GI which has already been considered to be inferior to GL.

With all due respect I consider this study to be somewhat out of context in relation to whether a diabetic should be consuming aspartame containing products. Would you really advise a diabetic client to continue consuming these products rather than encouraging a protein rich diet?

Iron_Pheonix

Quote from original reference from OP

" The groups also say they would help with programs that aim to improve nutrition in school meals and argue that the proposed amendments would promote "honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace," the FDA wrote.

As long as they are promoting their own products as healthy! Of course they want to be involved in school nutrition- they need to make sure their milk is still being consumed. A finger in all pies!! Never will they step up and declare their own products "flavoured milk" as unhealthy for children. All flavoured milk should be pulled out of schools to promote healthy nutrition!

If you won't consume it then neither should your children

neanderthin

So have you guys decided who is right and who is wrong yet? Will there be pie and punch served at the end?

Aspartame has many people by the gonads and gondola's, just look around in this thread, some can't even think straight.......it was bound to happen when the conspiracy for world domination was uncovered over the internet.:happy: Damn that artificial sweetner.

Acg67

To quote from that study:

"Collectively, the findings imply that typical Western diets are likely to be significantly more insulinogenic than more traditional diets based on less refined foods.

As observed in previous studies, consumption of protein or fat with carbohydrate in creases insulin secretion compared with the insulinogenic ef fect of these nutrients alone"

Therefore despite protein causing an insulin response (like all foods) it is still recognised that when consumed with a carbohydrate source that the insulin response is increased. A person wishing to reduce blood sugar levels & insulin response will be more successful if they lower their carbohydrate intake. This study in its conclusion also states that further research is required and note that the purpose of this study was to challenge GI which has already been considered to be inferior to GL.

With all due respect I consider this study to be somewhat out of context in relation to whether a diabetic should be consuming aspartame containing products. Would you really advise a diabetic client to continue consuming these products rather than encouraging a protein rich diet?

You left out a portion of that quote that goes directly against what you've been claiming

"Although some of the protein-rich foods may normally be eaten in smaller quantities, fish, beef, cheese, and eggs still had larger insulin responses per gram than did many of the foods consist ing predominantly of carbohydrate."

With all due respect I consider this study to be somewhat out of context in relation to whether a diabetic should be consuming aspartame containing products. Would you really advise a diabetic client to continue consuming these products rather than encouraging a protein rich diet?

Claim: Avoid aspartame because it spikes insulin

Listed other things that spike insulin and much much higher than aspartame and am waiting on the claim maker to say if they should be avoided as well.

neanderthin

show previous quotes

To quote from that study:

"Collectively, the findings imply that typical Western diets are likely to be significantly more insulinogenic than more traditional diets based on less refined foods.

As observed in previous studies, consumption of protein or fat with carbohydrate in creases insulin secretion compared with the insulinogenic ef fect of these nutrients alone"

Therefore despite protein causing an insulin response (like all foods) it is still recognised that when consumed with a carbohydrate source that the insulin response is increased. A person wishing to reduce blood sugar levels & insulin response will be more successful if they lower their carbohydrate intake. This study in its conclusion also states that further research is required and note that the purpose of this study was to challenge GI which has already been considered to be inferior to GL.

With all due respect I consider this study to be somewhat out of context in relation to whether a diabetic should be consuming aspartame containing products. Would you really advise a diabetic client to continue consuming these products rather than encouraging a protein rich diet?

You left out a portion of that quote that goes directly against what you've been claiming

"Although some of the protein-rich foods may normally be eaten in smaller quantities, fish, beef, cheese, and eggs still had larger insulin responses per gram than did many of the foods consist ing predominantly of carbohydrate."

show previous quotes

With all due respect I consider this study to be somewhat out of context in relation to whether a diabetic should be consuming aspartame containing products. Would you really advise a diabetic client to continue consuming these products rather than encouraging a protein rich diet?

Claim: Avoid aspartame because it spikes insulin

Listed other things that spike insulin and much much higher than aspartame and am waiting on the claim maker to say if they should be avoided as well.

Confirmation bias is thankless taskmaster.....some feel being right is more important than learning something new. Kinda reminds me of the quote "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

Acg67

Relationship Between Aspartame, Methanol and Formaldehyde Explained

http://andevidencelibrary.com/topic.cfm?cat=4089&highlight=aspartame&home=1

FredDoyle

Sometimes it's hard to hear when the tinfoil hat slips over your ears...

swissbrit

Thats why I avoid Weight Watchers products as there is loads of Aspartame in them and since avoiding it I have had no more migraines and my so called Fibromyalgie has just about disapeared. I have a code checker Ap that lets me scan everything that might be dodgy and lets me know if there are any nastys in it :laugh:

castadiva

show previous quotes

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.

Instead of adding sugar or HFCS to "chocolate milk" they would add aspartame or sucralose or whatever. It would still be on the label.

No, it wouldn't...

"Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".

The request is to be allowed to use artificial sweeteners in milk products without indicating what they are on the label. Major problem for anyone who avoids artificial sweeteners for whatever reason, like me. As I don't particularly enjoy incapacitating headaches, temporary blindness, loss of sensation in my arm and hand, the shakes...and I'd really rather not develop neurological diseases if I can avoid it, I need to know what's in a product, specifically what sweeteners have been used. A generic 'sweetener' ingredient listing gives me no clue what's actually in there. This proposal takes away my ability to make an informed choice, based on my personal needs.

Iron_Pheonix

show previous quotes

To quote from that study:

"Collectively, the findings imply that typical Western diets are likely to be significantly more insulinogenic than more traditional diets based on less refined foods.

As observed in previous studies, consumption of protein or fat with carbohydrate in creases insulin secretion compared with the insulinogenic ef fect of these nutrients alone"

Therefore despite protein causing an insulin response (like all foods) it is still recognised that when consumed with a carbohydrate source that the insulin response is increased. A person wishing to reduce blood sugar levels & insulin response will be more successful if they lower their carbohydrate intake. This study in its conclusion also states that further research is required and note that the purpose of this study was to challenge GI which has already been considered to be inferior to GL.

With all due respect I consider this study to be somewhat out of context in relation to whether a diabetic should be consuming aspartame containing products. Would you really advise a diabetic client to continue consuming these products rather than encouraging a protein rich diet?

You left out a portion of that quote that goes directly against what you've been claiming

"Although some of the protein-rich foods may normally be eaten in smaller quantities, fish, beef, cheese, and eggs still had larger insulin responses per gram than did many of the foods consist ing predominantly of carbohydrate."

With all due respect I consider this study to be somewhat out of context in relation to whether a diabetic should be consuming aspartame containing products. Would you really advise a diabetic client to continue consuming these products rather than encouraging a protein rich diet?

Claim: Avoid aspartame because it spikes insulin

Listed other things that spike insulin and much much higher than aspartame and am waiting on the claim maker to say if they should be avoided as well.

Confirmation bias is thankless taskmaster.....some feel being right is more important than learning something new. Kinda reminds me of the quote "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

It's not learning something new if the very people who did the study claimed that further investigation needs to be done. I am plenty educated in the matter thank you and do not argue a point "to be right" maybe you should be more open to learning something new? At least ACG argues his point with some respect for other people's opinions rather than making wide sweeping accusations.


Also I will never change my mind about consuming products that contain these ingredients. Dangerous or not they certainly don't rank as healthy. The foods I eat grew or lived, they did not come from a can or carton. My choice, my health.

concordancia

No, it wouldn't...

"Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".

The request is to be allowed to use artificial sweeteners in milk products without indicating what they are on the label. Major problem for anyone who avoids artificial sweeteners for whatever reason, like me. As I don't particularly enjoy incapacitating headaches, temporary blindness, loss of sensation in my arm and hand, the shakes...and I'd really rather not develop neurological diseases if I can avoid it, I need to know what's in a product, specifically what sweeteners have been used. A generic 'sweetener' ingredient listing gives me no clue what's actually in there. This proposal takes away my ability to make an informed choice, based on my personal needs.

That article is poorly written - the actual ingredients would still be listed with the nutrition facts, but there would not be anything on the *front* of the package indicating that you might want to take a closer look at the ingredients. You would have to always read the ingredients list, never assuming that regular meant no artificial sweeteners.

LesterBlackstone

show previous quotes

Confirmation bias is thankless taskmaster.....some feel being right is more important than learning something new. Kinda reminds me of the quote "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

Also I will never change my mind about consuming products that contain these ingredients.

LOL.

jonnythan

show previous quotes

Confirmation bias is thankless taskmaster.....some feel being right is more important than learning something new. Kinda reminds me of the quote "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

Also I will never change my mind about consuming products that contain these ingredients.

LOL.

It's funny when you take it out of context that way. But she didn't say that she will never change her mind about whether they're safe - she said she'll never change her mind about eating them.

Whether they prove to be safe or not, these artificial ingredients are, in her opinion, not necessary and serve no nutritional purpose. Therefore she will avoid them. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable route to me. I consume aspartame and other zero-calorie sweeteners, but I can respect the idea that someone would want to avoid artificial ingredients that serve no nutritive purpose.

castadiva

show previous quotes

No, it wouldn't...

"Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".

The request is to be allowed to use artificial sweeteners in milk products without indicating what they are on the label. Major problem for anyone who avoids artificial sweeteners for whatever reason, like me. As I don't particularly enjoy incapacitating headaches, temporary blindness, loss of sensation in my arm and hand, the shakes...and I'd really rather not develop neurological diseases if I can avoid it, I need to know what's in a product, specifically what sweeteners have been used. A generic 'sweetener' ingredient listing gives me no clue what's actually in there. This proposal takes away my ability to make an informed choice, based on my personal needs.

That article is poorly written - the actual ingredients would still be listed with the nutrition facts, but there would not be anything on the *front* of the package indicating that you might want to take a closer look at the ingredients. You would have to always read the ingredients list, never assuming that regular meant no artificial sweeteners.

Ah - I had understood it differently, from this and other sources ie. that the plan was to simply list 'sweetener' in the ingredients.

As it happens I'm already a compulsive label-reader. That stuff turns up in all sorts of unexpected places!

Iron_Pheonix

show previous quotes

Confirmation bias is thankless taskmaster.....some feel being right is more important than learning something new. Kinda reminds me of the quote "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

Also I will never change my mind about consuming products that contain these ingredients.

LOL.

It's funny when you take it out of context that way. But she didn't say that she will never change her mind about whether they're safe - she said she'll never change her mind about eating them.

Whether they prove to be safe or not, these artificial ingredients are, in her opinion, not necessary and serve no nutritional purpose. Therefore she will avoid them. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable route to me. I consume aspartame and other zero-calorie sweeteners, but I can respect the idea that someone would want to avoid artificial ingredients that serve no nutritive purpose.

Thank you, as I respect your choice to consume them.

LesterBlackstone

show previous quotes

Confirmation bias is thankless taskmaster.....some feel being right is more important than learning something new. Kinda reminds me of the quote "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

Also I will never change my mind about consuming products that contain these ingredients.

LOL.

It's funny when you take it out of context that way. But she didn't say that she will never change her mind about whether they're safe - she said she'll never change her mind about eating them.

Whether they prove to be safe or not, these artificial ingredients are, in her opinion, not necessary and serve no nutritional purpose. Therefore she will avoid them. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable route to me. I consume aspartame and other zero-calorie sweeteners, but I can respect the idea that someone would want to avoid artificial ingredients that serve no nutritive purpose.

Thank you, as I respect your choice to consume them.

Then why are you constantly spouting off with tinfoil-hat nonsense about their dangers?

concordancia

show previous quotes

No, it wouldn't...

"Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".

The request is to be allowed to use artificial sweeteners in milk products without indicating what they are on the label. Major problem for anyone who avoids artificial sweeteners for whatever reason, like me. As I don't particularly enjoy incapacitating headaches, temporary blindness, loss of sensation in my arm and hand, the shakes...and I'd really rather not develop neurological diseases if I can avoid it, I need to know what's in a product, specifically what sweeteners have been used. A generic 'sweetener' ingredient listing gives me no clue what's actually in there. This proposal takes away my ability to make an informed choice, based on my personal needs.

That article is poorly written - the actual ingredients would still be listed with the nutrition facts, but there would not be anything on the *front* of the package indicating that you might want to take a closer look at the ingredients. You would have to always read the ingredients list, never assuming that regular meant no artificial sweeteners.

Ah - I had understood it differently, from this and other sources ie. that the plan was to simply list 'sweetener' in the ingredients.

As it happens I'm already a compulsive label-reader. That stuff turns up in all sorts of unexpected places!

I found the articles so contradictory that I went to the FDA site to read it directly.

Iron_Pheonix

show previous quotes

Confirmation bias is thankless taskmaster.....some feel being right is more important than learning something new. Kinda reminds me of the quote "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

Also I will never change my mind about consuming products that contain these ingredients.

LOL.

It's funny when you take it out of context that way. But she didn't say that she will never change her mind about whether they're safe - she said she'll never change her mind about eating them.

Whether they prove to be safe or not, these artificial ingredients are, in her opinion, not necessary and serve no nutritional purpose. Therefore she will avoid them. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable route to me. I consume aspartame and other zero-calorie sweeteners, but I can respect the idea that someone would want to avoid artificial ingredients that serve no nutritive purpose.

Thank you, as I respect your choice to consume them.

Then why are you constantly spouting off with tinfoil-hat nonsense about their dangers?

I don't consider that I have, maybe you should reread my posts I don't consider them to be conductive to a healthy diet and no I don't consider it to be safe but not have I "spouted off" about their dangers. I have a right to my opinion on what's good information just as you do too. At least I have respect for that, all I ask is the same back. Do you have anything to say aside from critising other people's discussions?

SteveJWatson

Jesus wept.

NOT PLAIN MILK, FLAVOURED MILK DRINKS!

And yes, it will be on the ingredients list - its just about whether or not they can call it 'chocolate milk' if it contains aspartame.

LilD1esel

I just read this and was appalled. I am extremely sensitive to aspartame. What's next, I have to buy my own cow? Okay, just read something totally different on SNOPES. I'll have to do more research. It certainly gets tiresome sometimes having to do so much research just to protect one's self.

SanteMulberry

It certainly gets tiresome sometimes having to do so much research just to protect one's self.

I totally agree. If our government watchdogs (at all levels) would actually decide to do their jobs (protecting the people) we wouldn't have to work so hard at protecting our health.

renku

I understand a lot of people are pointing out that this applies to flavoured milk. But based on the way the food industry works this could include "Healthy Milk Drinks" they would package and sell for children or as a healthy alternative to all those calories in milk. If they can sell something that is 50% water, 45% dairy and 5% crap, if it costs less to produce than milk and has a higher profit margin they will find any way to push it.

g0tr00t

Poison is poison...period.

http://media.mercola.com/assets/images/mercola/aspartame-timeline.jpg