Aspartame in Milk?

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.

you mean its NOT already in chocolate milk?

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.

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?

I think it's fantastic. Except those that are legitimitly intolerent to it there is no logical reason to think it's unsafe to consume. Making a conclusion based on one or two studies that confirm your belief with out looking at the rest of the science is an illogical way to come to a conclusion and ranges from silly to irresponsible when passing on "information" to others.

I would be incredibly suprised if they didn't label it, and even more surprised if they didn't offer both with or with-out. If for what-ever reason you don't like it (flavor, don't trust it's healthy etc..) then get the regular chocolate milk or something else.

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?

1) You presumably use desks, which are presumably made from wood or wood products. So at some point you decided that chopping down a tree and shaping it into a desk was an improvement.

2) The proposed changes make it acceptable to change a product you would never use in a way that will result in you still not using said product. So why do you even care?

I think it's fantastic. Except those that are legitimitly intolerent to it there is no logical reason to think it's unsafe to consume. Making a conclusion based on one or two studies that confirm your belief with out looking at the rest of the science is an illogical way to come to a conclusion and ranges from silly to irresponsible when passing on "information" to others.

I would be incredibly suprised if they didn't label it, and even more surprised if they didn't offer both with or with-out. If for what-ever reason you don't like it (flavor, don't trust it's healthy etc..) then get the regular chocolate milk or something else.

Nobody stated that their opinion was based on a few studies? And how is it irresponsible to state that I choose not to consume it? I didn't advise anyone else

IMO it's irresponsible to say that foods containing added HFCS are acceptable, while foods containing aspartame are not.

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?

1) You presumably use desks, which are presumably made from wood or wood products. So at some point you decided that chopping down a tree and shaping it into a desk was an improvement.

2) The proposed changes make it acceptable to change a product you would never use in a way that will result in you still not using said product. So why do you even care?

Well just so happens I don't lol, however point taken but I wouldn't state that as "an improvement"

Isn't that why we are on this site? Because we do care?

You don't what? Use desks? OK. You do clearly use wooden cabinets and window trim, because they are visible in your profile picture.

I think it's fantastic. Except those that are legitimitly intolerent to it there is no logical reason to think it's unsafe to consume. Making a conclusion based on one or two studies that confirm your belief with out looking at the rest of the science is an illogical way to come to a conclusion and ranges from silly to irresponsible when passing on "information" to others.

I would be incredibly suprised if they didn't label it, and even more surprised if they didn't offer both with or with-out. If for what-ever reason you don't like it (flavor, don't trust it's healthy etc..) then get the regular chocolate milk or something else.

Nobody stated that their opinion was based on a few studies? And how is it irresponsible to state that I choose not to consume it? I didn't advise anyone else

IMO it's irresponsible to say that foods containing added HFCS are acceptable, while foods containing aspartame are not.

Who said HFCS are acceptable??

It's currently legal to add HFCS to milk. Are you saying that should be illegal, the way adding aspartame to milk is illegal?

It's currently legal to add HFCS to milk. Are you saying that should be illegal, the way adding aspartame to milk is illegal?

No not at all, thou I can't see why they add anything to it. If they put it in then they should state it, why restrict one and not the other. I never stated that one should be different to another. I merely pointed out that there is no need to add these things to it. Feel free to educate me as to why it needs to be in the product at all?

I still can not understand why anyone would consume it,

I still can not understand why anyone would consume it,

Because it tastes good.